Dear Avri, This is extremely helpful and an excellent contribution! Questions: 1) As per Annex L of the CWG proposal (Para 1390), wouldnt the recommendation of the IFR for the creation of the SCWG also require GNSO & ccNSO supermajority approval and CM approval? Accordingly, I have created a revised version of the process that I understood (in a separate document since I am not able to add it your document). Please correct me if I am wrong. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1NYLD847RoUWZDOT-_1wIlsHxjXo3guax-tYE... 2) How would the procedure comparatively differ in case of a membership model? Would board approval be replaced by member approval in both steps where board approval is required? Or would the member approval be invoked only after board rejection? 3) In case the board is spilled and then reconstituted, would the process begin from square 1 (reconstitution of IFR), or would the process continue from the point where it was rejected by the spilled board? 4) Under what scenarios can arbitration be invoked in case of board rejection? Say the board rejects the recommendation citing security and stability - in that case on what grounds can the community resort to arbitration - which bylaw would the board have vitiated for arbitration to be invoked? Thanks. Guru On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I have attempted to draw up a discussion set of slides on the connection between the CWG process for Separability and the CCWG accountability and enforcement measures.
The drive doc is open for comments:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kmDLv0yF41lb9OBlCKnl6o3TMps6AlTF8Njs...
I have also attached a PDF.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community