I think our job is to carry out the "dependencies" of the CWG as faithfully as possible. We should not be interjecting our own opinions or re-doing the CWG's work. The answers to our questions should be found in the CWG's final report, and if there ambiguities, they should be referred back to the CWG for clarification.
I've reviewed the CWG Final Report and I think the answers are fairly clear.
You ask "I wonder if the same sort of co-decision process is required for the formation of a Special IFR." The CWG Final Report (para 124)states "In order to trigger a Special IFR, it would require a vote of both of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils (each by a supermajority vote according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority)." There is no mention of a Board role in the formation of a SIFR. This appears to be consistent with Avri's slides.
As to the formation of a SCWG if recommended by the IFR, the Final Report states " If the IFR determines that a separation process is necessary, it will recommend the creation of a Separation Cross Community Working Group (SCWG). This recommendation will need to be approved by a supermajority of each of the GNSO and the ccNSO Councils, according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority, and will need to be approved by the ICANN Board after a public comment period, as well as a community mechanism derived from the CCWG-Accountability process. [57] A determination by the ICANN Board to not approve a SCWG that had been supported by a supermajority of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils will need to follow the same supermajority thresholds and consultation procedures as ICANN Board rejection (by a supermajority vote) of a PDP recommendation that is supported by a GNSO supermajority."
Basically the same process would take place if the SCWG decided to recommend a separation.
I'm not sure I would describe this as a co-decision process, but it does require approval of both the Board and the community, which I think would be done through the Community Forum and the Single Designator. As to a decision by the Board that the community disagrees with, the next steps would be those in the last sentence above, which I think would need to take place before any IRP or Board recall.
The relative timing of the Board decision and the community decision is not entirely clear, but my reading and recollection is that it is intended to be simultaneous but separate.
Finally, as to Bylaws, I would say that Bylaws relating to the community decision process should be drafted by the CCWG, since the performance of the community mechanism is uniquely the competency of this group. Other bylaws relating to the SIFR/SCWG/Separation process should be drafted by the CWG. I note that the CWG asked Sidley to come up with a draft plan for preparing the Bylaws, including their thoughts on division of labor between the CWG and CCWG. I don't have that at my fingertips, but that should be fairly dispositive, unless we (or the CWG) see something we disagree with. We should look at that ASAP.
Greg
I'm