Rec 2 - escalation process - second reading draft
Hi all Attached in PDF and Word are my tracked changes building on the work Bernie/Alice did to do the changes to the timeframes for escalation. Thanks for kicking it off, Alice and Bernie and others! The comments together form a second reading draft for the call on Thursday. This approach, in essence: - has a two-SO/AC requirement to petition for any of the powers (except whole Board recall - that would be three SOs/ACs) - ditches the Conference Call stage - extends timeframes for SO/AC decision This new approach is in recognition of the desire noted by SOs and ACs to have longer timeframes than the previous process allowed, and in recognition that in exercising any of the community powers, a reasonable amount of informal community dialogue and discussion is highly likely - and so SOs and ACs will have had several weeks to consider the issue before the final 21 days allowed to decide after the Forum. The new timeframes flow as follows, with this showing maximum possible time: 21 days: Petition deadline for first SO/AC + 7 days: Time for a second/third SO/AC to sign on for the petition [if no valid petition, lapses] + 21 days: Time within which Community Forum must be organised {note - within 7 days of valid petition, written rationale must be circulated - this does not go "on top of" the 21 days for the Forum, it is within it.} + 21 days: Time within which SOs and ACs must decide whether to exercise the power. So the longest possible time is 70 days. There's included an ability by the SO or ACs petitioning to extent to the next in-person meeting, EXCEPT (a new exception) where it's about the Budget power - we cannot put the budgets on hold for months, in my view..... cheers Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet * -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
Thanks for the share, a few comments inline, On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all
7 days: Time for a second/third SO/AC to sign on for the petition
[if no valid petition, lapses]
SO: May be good to put a limit on number of restart of this phase? especially if its still from the same initial petitioning SO/AC and on the same subject. Other comments: - Considering that bylaw changes can only be proposed by the board, i think its fine to lower to 3 support of SO/AC - 3 support to remove nomcom appointees seem to be quite low as i think it should be 4 (nomcom appointees are technically selected by the whole community) - Removal of entire board still reflects as 4, while that is only a compromise as it ought to be unanimous; Its unthinkable that every SO/AC would not be made to commit to whatever implications that emerge from spilling the board.
+
21 days: Time within which Community Forum must be organised {note - within 7 days of valid petition, written rationale must be circulated - this does not go "on top of" the 21 days for the Forum, it is within it.}
SO: I had thought the rationale would come together with the petition, is there a reason for giving another 7 days for the rationale after petition is received?
+
21 days: Time within which SOs and ACs must decide whether to exercise the power.
SO: Again it will be good to be sure this is a hard deadline (not expendable) as we have done so extension in this current process. Perhaps a note relating to that should be indicated. Regards
So the longest possible time is 70 days.
There's included an ability by the SO or ACs petitioning to extent to the next in-person meeting, EXCEPT (a new exception) where it's about the Budget power - we cannot put the budgets on hold for months, in my view.....
cheers Jordan
-- 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 *
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
hi all, hi Seun, some comments in line below: On 13 January 2016 at 21:08, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the share, a few comments inline,
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all
7 days: Time for a second/third SO/AC to sign on for the petition
[if no valid petition, lapses]
SO: May be good to put a limit on number of restart of this phase? especially if its still from the same initial petitioning SO/AC and on the same subject.
I am not sure we need this. For the bylaws block or the Budget/strat plan powers, if the power isn't successfully petitioned for in the time frame, then there isn't the possibility of a further petition. For the fundamental bylaws approval this is N/A. We have built in that if a power to recall a director lapses it can't be used again in that director's term. And repeated rounds of effort to recall the whole ICANN Board seem unlikely.
Other comments: - Considering that bylaw changes can only be proposed by the board, i think its fine to lower to 3 support of SO/AC
- 3 support to remove nomcom appointees seem to be quite low as i think it
should be 4 (nomcom appointees are technically selected by the whole community) - Removal of entire board still reflects as 4, while that is only a compromise as it ought to be unanimous; Its unthinkable that every SO/AC would not be made to commit to whatever implications that emerge from spilling the board.
We have been very clear that none of the powers require unanimity, and re-considering that decision is not likely to be something the CCWG as a whole would be looking to do at this point. Aside from saying that, I don't think the thresholds were a topic at the meeting or of my note, so I won't comment further.
+
21 days: Time within which Community Forum must be organised {note - within 7 days of valid petition, written rationale must be circulated - this does not go "on top of" the 21 days for the Forum, it is within it.}
SO: I had thought the rationale would come together with the petition, is there a reason for giving another 7 days for the rationale after petition is received?
I made the fewest possible changes, and wondered about this myself, but don't think it matters much either way.
+
21 days: Time within which SOs and ACs must decide whether to exercise the power.
SO: Again it will be good to be sure this is a hard deadline (not expendable) as we have done so extension in this current process. Perhaps a note relating to that should be indicated.
I think the language in the proposal is clear that these are timeframes that can't be changed with any huge ease. If it isn't clear, we will just all have to be vigilant about making sure that is properly reflected in implementation. best Jordan
Regards
So the longest possible time is 70 days.
There's included an ability by the SO or ACs petitioning to extent to the next in-person meeting, EXCEPT (a new exception) where it's about the Budget power - we cannot put the budgets on hold for months, in my view.....
cheers Jordan
-- 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 *
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-- 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 *
Dear Mathieu, I did send you several corrections and comments for corrections between 08-21 January 2016. Have you implemented these correcetions and comments KAVOUSS 2016-01-15 4:32 GMT+01:00 Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>:
hi all, hi Seun, some comments in line below:
On 13 January 2016 at 21:08, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the share, a few comments inline,
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all
7 days: Time for a second/third SO/AC to sign on for the petition
[if no valid petition, lapses]
SO: May be good to put a limit on number of restart of this phase? especially if its still from the same initial petitioning SO/AC and on the same subject.
I am not sure we need this. For the bylaws block or the Budget/strat plan powers, if the power isn't successfully petitioned for in the time frame, then there isn't the possibility of a further petition. For the fundamental bylaws approval this is N/A. We have built in that if a power to recall a director lapses it can't be used again in that director's term. And repeated rounds of effort to recall the whole ICANN Board seem unlikely.
Other comments: - Considering that bylaw changes can only be proposed by the board, i think its fine to lower to 3 support of SO/AC
- 3 support to remove nomcom appointees seem to be quite low as i think
it should be 4 (nomcom appointees are technically selected by the whole community) - Removal of entire board still reflects as 4, while that is only a compromise as it ought to be unanimous; Its unthinkable that every SO/AC would not be made to commit to whatever implications that emerge from spilling the board.
We have been very clear that none of the powers require unanimity, and re-considering that decision is not likely to be something the CCWG as a whole would be looking to do at this point. Aside from saying that, I don't think the thresholds were a topic at the meeting or of my note, so I won't comment further.
+
21 days: Time within which Community Forum must be organised {note - within 7 days of valid petition, written rationale must be circulated - this does not go "on top of" the 21 days for the Forum, it is within it.}
SO: I had thought the rationale would come together with the petition, is there a reason for giving another 7 days for the rationale after petition is received?
I made the fewest possible changes, and wondered about this myself, but don't think it matters much either way.
+
21 days: Time within which SOs and ACs must decide whether to exercise the power.
SO: Again it will be good to be sure this is a hard deadline (not expendable) as we have done so extension in this current process. Perhaps a note relating to that should be indicated.
I think the language in the proposal is clear that these are timeframes that can't be changed with any huge ease. If it isn't clear, we will just all have to be vigilant about making sure that is properly reflected in implementation.
best Jordan
Regards
So the longest possible time is 70 days.
There's included an ability by the SO or ACs petitioning to extent to the next in-person meeting, EXCEPT (a new exception) where it's about the Budget power - we cannot put the budgets on hold for months, in my view.....
cheers Jordan
-- 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 *
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-- 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
Thanks Jordan - agree with proposed changes. Just a couple things: Page 7 para 12 - I think we can remove the words " within six days" in the second bullet as it is clear that support must be achieved in 7 days Para 27 page 11 - I may have missed the discussion/rationale this but assume this is marked N/A because it is an approval and not a rejection? Para 3 page 1 and para 50 page 12 - reference to % - did we agree that such a an approach would be taken if so do we need to refer to %s in the threshold table? Thanks Matthew On 13/01/2016 06:40, Jordan Carter wrote:
Hi all
Attached in PDF and Word are my tracked changes building on the work Bernie/Alice did to do the changes to the timeframes for escalation.
Thanks for kicking it off, Alice and Bernie and others!
The comments together form a second reading draft for the call on Thursday.
This approach, in essence:
- has a two-SO/AC requirement to petition for any of the powers (except whole Board recall - that would be three SOs/ACs) - ditches the Conference Call stage - extends timeframes for SO/AC decision
This new approach is in recognition of the desire noted by SOs and ACs to have longer timeframes than the previous process allowed, and in recognition that in exercising any of the community powers, a reasonable amount of informal community dialogue and discussion is highly likely - and so SOs and ACs will have had several weeks to consider the issue before the final 21 days allowed to decide after the Forum.
The new timeframes flow as follows, with this showing maximum possible time:
21 days: Petition deadline for first SO/AC
+
7 days: Time for a second/third SO/AC to sign on for the petition
[if no valid petition, lapses]
+
21 days: Time within which Community Forum must be organised {note - within 7 days of valid petition, written rationale must be circulated - this does not go "on top of" the 21 days for the Forum, it is within it.}
+
21 days: Time within which SOs and ACs must decide whether to exercise the power.
So the longest possible time is 70 days.
There's included an ability by the SO or ACs petitioning to extent to the next in-person meeting, EXCEPT (a new exception) where it's about the Budget power - we cannot put the budgets on hold for months, in my view.....
cheers Jordan
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
/A better world through a better Internet /
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
hi Matthew, Just following up on this: On 13 January 2016 at 22:47, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
Thanks Jordan - agree with proposed changes. Just a couple things:
Page 7 para 12 - I think we can remove the words " within six days" in the second bullet as it is clear that support must be achieved in 7 days
Good, will update.
Para 27 page 11 - I may have missed the discussion/rationale this but assume this is marked N/A because it is an approval and not a rejection?
Yes, that's right - there's no threshold to have a forum because the forum happens automatically (the Board passing a decision about a change to fundamental bylaws requires the community process to happen so the community can decide whether to allow the change or not).
Para 3 page 1 and para 50 page 12 - reference to % - did we agree that such a an approach would be taken if so do we need to refer to %s in the threshold table?
I can't recall where we got to on this, hoping cochairs can help - don't think we spent time on it yesterday? cheers Jordan
Thanks
Matthew
On 13/01/2016 06:40, Jordan Carter wrote:
Hi all
Attached in PDF and Word are my tracked changes building on the work Bernie/Alice did to do the changes to the timeframes for escalation.
Thanks for kicking it off, Alice and Bernie and others!
The comments together form a second reading draft for the call on Thursday.
This approach, in essence:
- has a two-SO/AC requirement to petition for any of the powers (except whole Board recall - that would be three SOs/ACs) - ditches the Conference Call stage - extends timeframes for SO/AC decision
This new approach is in recognition of the desire noted by SOs and ACs to have longer timeframes than the previous process allowed, and in recognition that in exercising any of the community powers, a reasonable amount of informal community dialogue and discussion is highly likely - and so SOs and ACs will have had several weeks to consider the issue before the final 21 days allowed to decide after the Forum.
The new timeframes flow as follows, with this showing maximum possible time:
21 days: Petition deadline for first SO/AC
+
7 days: Time for a second/third SO/AC to sign on for the petition
[if no valid petition, lapses]
+
21 days: Time within which Community Forum must be organised {note - within 7 days of valid petition, written rationale must be circulated - this does not go "on top of" the 21 days for the Forum, it is within it.}
+
21 days: Time within which SOs and ACs must decide whether to exercise the power.
So the longest possible time is 70 days.
There's included an ability by the SO or ACs petitioning to extent to the next in-person meeting, EXCEPT (a new exception) where it's about the Budget power - we cannot put the budgets on hold for months, in my view.....
cheers Jordan
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: <http://www.internetnz.nz>www.internetnz.nz
*A better world through a better Internet *
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org+ 44 771 247 2987
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...> This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...>
-- 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 *
participants (4)
-
Jordan Carter -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Matthew Shears -
Seun Ojedeji