hi Julie Yes, that is a good point. More precisely formulated, and as discussed on the WP1 calls yesterday, this is what I mean: "When the new accountability system is put in place, the Bylaws will provide for a certain list of SOs and ACs to be able to register their preferences which count towards decisions about using or not using the powers. "These are labelled, for want of a better term, *decisional participants*. "Those SOs and ACs that are decisional participants will be able to express their support for or objection to the use of a power, or express no view at all, and their views will be considered in deciding whether the threshold to exercise a power is reached. "Any other SO and AC and indeed any other person will be able to register a view through the Community Forum about the use of any community power. They just won't have the right to have their views counted in making decisions about the use of a power. "The Decisional Participants will need to be listed in the bylaws and so will need to be specified in the Third Draft Report. If a named SO and AC the CCWG identifies as Decisional does not wish to be, they will need to say so in their response to the report. "In such a case, a supplementary report would need to be prepared for Chartering Organisations with a changed list of Decisional Participants. Our current Third Draft Report also identifies that in such a case, the voting thresholds may need to be reconsidered." I hope this helps best Jordan On 24 November 2015 at 10:37, Julie Hammer <julie.hammer@bigpond.com> wrote:
Hi Jordan,
It might be an idea to use very precise language when making this request for confirmation from SO/ACs. For example, SSAC has stated that it does not wish to take on any role in *exercising community powers*, but will continue to *provide its input* on security and stability aspects in a purely advisory capacity (ie *participate*). This may take the form of providing such advice in the Community Forum, with the objective that the community be able to judge that advice on its merits and take it into consideration in its decision making.
Cheers, Julie
On 24 Nov 2015, at 7:01 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
hi Greg,
Yes, that's the idea...
best Jordan
On 23 November 2015 at 08:49, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry I was unable to make the WP-1 call today. Can someone clarify what this means?
ACTION ITEM: CoChairs to request that SO/AC confirmation of participation be sent along with input on third draft proposal
Does this mean that the SO/ACs will be asked to confirm that they will participate in the Sole Designator/Empowered Community? And that this confirmation is being requested with the input expected on or around December 21, 2015?
Thanks!
Greg
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> wrote:
Hello all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP-1 meeting on 22 November will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/XMJYAw
A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Brenda
Action Item
· *ACTION ITEM: CoChairs to request that SO/AC confirmation of participation be sent along with input on third draft proposal*
· *ACTION ITEM: Determine where full IRP process should be added * *Notes*
*These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.*
LInk to docs: https://community.icann.org/x/eLRYAw
- No discussion of decision threshold in engagement/escalation - it needs to be added to the powers
- IANA Functions review language should be further elaborated.
- IRP, separation processes need to be described in detail
ACTION ITEM: Determine where full IRP process should be added
- Rights of inspection: there is a generic reference - its needs to be made explicit that rights of inspection equivalent to member's
DIDP should be subject to IRP - this is unclear in WS2
DIDP appeals mechanisms
- Human Rights - add 'if any' in human rights appendix
- Ombudsman improvements missing from WS2
- Add table of required threshold to core proposal
- Consider reordering sections (staff to refer to Jordan's request)
-Articles should be subject to co-decision but lower threshold than Fundamental Bylaws
Protection should be offered to Articles of Incorporation at level of membership model
Other views that should be on same protection as Fundamental Bylaw
- Reinsert AOC tables into annex 9
ACTION ITEM: CoChairs to request that SO/AC confirmation of participation be sent along with input on third draft proposal
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz
*A better world through a better Internet *
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *