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

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