Agenda and dcoument for today< meeting
Dear Co-Chairs Thank you very much for your valuable works and tireless follow up action. In order to avoid difficulties that some of us faced on 13 April WP1meeting opening thnhree docuts almost com[plex ones, may I request you to kindly 1. Provide the agenda 2. hyperlink the documents in the order of their pre3sentation 3. fFollow ,as usual, the most practiceabkle order of debate taking agenda and walking through it item by item allowing people to comment.and when walking through a given doc. take it portion by portion or section by section in order to have a more efficient process. 4..Kindly advise the status of the legal assements Memos, 18 March ,4 April,,10 April, 11, April which ones are being discussed where and in what order . In most of these Memos, there are variety of options /alternatives for each subject. when and how we reconcile or at least minimize the number of options and alternatives 5. Kindly establish some order for introducing terms and definition . For Example ,in legal Memos , we have terms such as "Members "and "Group Member"are these two having the same meaning or desteny . 6.Paragraphs 9.3 and 9.3.1 of AoC for review process of gTLD and WHOIS in which the chair of GAC( in consultation with GAC members) has an important role in the compositioon of the review team . In transferring these paragraphs to Bylaws, these roles were not carried forward.Arguments given by two CCWG attendees were not convincing 7 For stress test 18, thje argument quoted from the NTIA announcemnet appearing as background for change is not valid since the NTIA statement has had different objectives and did not pointed to the issue of consensus buildingt in GAC..Moreover the explanations given in thwe table are inconsistent with each other . Before we go further, we need to consult GAC about this and their position on the matter required to be sought in BA 53 gac MEETING 7. There are threshold for certain actions in the document labelled " community empowerment"paragraph 6.5.2 was /is arbitrarily chosen for example 60% .in other parts of 6.5.5 it is mentioned 20% .Where these thresholds come from There are norms, practices to be followed. Simple majority, 2/3, 3/4, and 4/5 are threshold normally used.For initiation of an action the threshold is 25% and not 20%. Paragrapg 6.5.3 refereed to mechanism in paragraph 6.5.1 ,in the latter no such mechanism is found 8.Inconsistencies between the title and the body of the texts in 6.5.2,6.5.3, 6.5.4 . 9. Reference is made to change of /to "Fundamental"Bylaws as well as change of/ to "Bylaws"but there is no mention what is mesant by "fundamental "provirions and how they are distinted from other provisions of Bylaws"nON fUNDAMENTAL" tHERE ARE MANY MANY CASES LIKE THE ABOVE THAT NEVER BEEN DISCUSSED. We need to carefully look at these Regards Kavouss .
Kavouss, thank you for your message and let me also thank you for attention to this and your dedication to the project. I guess that we can fix most of the points you raised. I expect a lot of clarification from the presentation by the law firms later today. Please find a few remarks below. - We have discussed 9.3. of the AOC on a few occasions and there was no objection at the time, but the CCWG as well as the GAC certainly can voice their concerns on this, if any. - We will discuss ST 18 extensively during today’s call. - The thresholds are proposals that will be discussed by the group. Kind regards, Thomas
Am 14.04.2015 um 10:24 schrieb Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Co-Chairs Thank you very much for your valuable works and tireless follow up action. In order to avoid difficulties that some of us faced on 13 April WP1meeting opening thnhree docuts almost com[plex ones, may I request you to kindly 1. Provide the agenda 2. hyperlink the documents in the order of their pre3sentation 3. fFollow ,as usual, the most practiceabkle order of debate taking agenda and walking through it item by item allowing people to comment.and when walking through a given doc. take it portion by portion or section by section in order to have a more efficient process. 4..Kindly advise the status of the legal assements Memos, 18 March ,4 April,,10 April, 11, April which ones are being discussed where and in what order . In most of these Memos, there are variety of options /alternatives for each subject. when and how we reconcile or at least minimize the number of options and alternatives 5. Kindly establish some order for introducing terms and definition . For Example ,in legal Memos , we have terms such as "Members "and "Group Member"are these two having the same meaning or desteny . 6.Paragraphs 9.3 and 9.3.1 of AoC for review process of gTLD and WHOIS in which the chair of GAC( in consultation with GAC members) has an important role in the compositioon of the review team . In transferring these paragraphs to Bylaws, these roles were not carried forward.Arguments given by two CCWG attendees were not convincing 7 For stress test 18, thje argument quoted from the NTIA announcemnet appearing as background for change is not valid since the NTIA statement has had different objectives and did not pointed to the issue of consensus buildingt in GAC..Moreover the explanations given in thwe table are inconsistent with each other . Before we go further, we need to consult GAC about this and their position on the matter required to be sought in BA 53 gac MEETING 7. There are threshold for certain actions in the document labelled " community empowerment"paragraph 6.5.2 was /is arbitrarily chosen for example 60% .in other parts of 6.5.5 it is mentioned 20% .Where these thresholds come from There are norms, practices to be followed. Simple majority, 2/3, 3/4, and 4/5 are threshold normally used.For initiation of an action the threshold is 25% and not 20%. Paragrapg 6.5.3 refereed to mechanism in paragraph 6.5.1 ,in the latter no such mechanism is found 8.Inconsistencies between the title and the body of the texts in 6.5.2,6.5.3, 6.5.4 . 9. Reference is made to change of /to "Fundamental"Bylaws as well as change of/ to "Bylaws"but there is no mention what is mesant by "fundamental "provirions and how they are distinted from other provisions of Bylaws"nON fUNDAMENTAL" tHERE ARE MANY MANY CASES LIKE THE ABOVE THAT NEVER BEEN DISCUSSED. We need to carefully look at these Regards Kavouss .
Dear Kavouss, I provide some answers inline, with the purpose to clarify where matters are currently handled. Le 14/04/2015 10:24, Kavouss Arasteh a écrit :
Dear Co-Chairs Thank you very much for your valuable works and tireless follow up action. In order to avoid difficulties that some of us faced on 13 April WP1meeting opening thnhree docuts almost com[plex ones, may I request you to kindly 1. Provide the agenda Adam circulated the agenda yesterday (see attachment) 2. hyperlink the documents in the order of their pre3sentation The relevant links to the available documents are in the attachment 3. fFollow ,as usual, the most practiceabkle order of debate taking agenda and walking through it item by item allowing people to comment.and when walking through a given doc. take it portion by portion or section by section in order to have a more efficient process. that is our plan. 4..Kindly advise the status of the legal assements Memos, 18 March ,4 April,,10 April, 11, April which ones are being discussed where and in what order . In most of these Memos, there are variety of options /alternatives for each subject. when and how we reconcile or at least minimize the number of options and alternatives None of these memos is intended to be a direct work product of our group. However legal advice will provide during our call a general recap of their views, and you (and other colleagues) will have the opportunity to ask questions. 5. Kindly establish some order for introducing terms and definition . For Example ,in legal Memos , we have terms such as "Members "and "Group Member"are these two having the same meaning or desteny . We will provide this question to the legal advisors, through the legal group 6.Paragraphs 9.3 and 9.3.1 of AoC for review process of gTLD and WHOIS in which the chair of GAC( in consultation with GAC members) has an important role in the compositioon of the review team . In transferring these paragraphs to Bylaws, these roles were not carried forward.Arguments given by two CCWG attendees were not convincing This point is currently being discussed within WP1 proposals. I am sure they will consider this input. 7 For stress test 18, thje argument quoted from the NTIA announcemnet appearing as background for change is not valid since the NTIA statement has had different objectives and did not pointed to the issue of consensus buildingt in GAC..Moreover the explanations given in thwe table are inconsistent with each other .
Before we go further, we need to consult GAC about this and their position on the matter required to be sought in BA 53 gac MEETING This item is on our agenda today, so we'll have the opportunity to exchange during the session. 7. There are threshold for certain actions in the document labelled " community empowerment"paragraph 6.5.2 was /is arbitrarily chosen for example 60% .in other parts of 6.5.5 it is mentioned 20% .Where these thresholds come from There are norms, practices to be followed. Simple majority, 2/3, 3/4, and 4/5 are threshold normally used.For initiation of an action the threshold is 25% and not 20%. Paragrapg 6.5.3 refereed to mechanism in paragraph 6.5.1 ,in the latter no such mechanism is found This point is currently being discussed within WP1 proposals. I am sure they will consider this input. 8.Inconsistencies between the title and the body of the texts in 6.5.2,6.5.3, 6.5.4 . I suppose you also refer to WP1. 9. Reference is made to change of /to "Fundamental"Bylaws as well as change of/ to "Bylaws"but there is no mention what is mesant by "fundamental "provirions and how they are distinted from other provisions of Bylaws"nON fUNDAMENTAL" The "fundamental Bylaw" concept was introduced in Singapore and confirmed during the CCWG call that ensued. WP2 is tassked with definition and scoping of that concept we are introducing. I am confident their input will address your question.
I hope that is helpful to clarify. Best Mathieu
tHERE ARE MANY MANY CASES LIKE THE ABOVE THAT NEVER BEEN DISCUSSED. We need to carefully look at these Regards Kavouss .
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
A "fundamental" bylaw is one that is more difficult to change than a regular bylaw. For instance, there would be a higher threshold for a vote to change a fundamental bylaws. The content of a fundamental bylaw can be just about anything. However, usually fundamental bylaws cover things that are essential to the nature of the organization. Greg On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Kavouss,
I provide some answers inline, with the purpose to clarify where matters are currently handled.
Le 14/04/2015 10:24, Kavouss Arasteh a écrit :
Dear Co-Chairs Thank you very much for your valuable works and tireless follow up action. In order to avoid difficulties that some of us faced on 13 April WP1meeting opening thnhree docuts almost com[plex ones, may I request you to kindly 1. Provide the agenda
Adam circulated the agenda yesterday (see attachment)
2. hyperlink the documents in the order of their pre3sentation
The relevant links to the available documents are in the attachment
3. fFollow ,as usual, the most practiceabkle order of debate taking agenda and walking through it item by item allowing people to comment.and when walking through a given doc. take it portion by portion or section by section in order to have a more efficient process.
that is our plan.
4..Kindly advise the status of the legal assements Memos, 18 March ,4 April,,10 April, 11, April which ones are being discussed where and in what order . In most of these Memos, there are variety of options /alternatives for each subject. when and how we reconcile or at least minimize the number of options and alternatives
None of these memos is intended to be a direct work product of our group. However legal advice will provide during our call a general recap of their views, and you (and other colleagues) will have the opportunity to ask questions.
5. Kindly establish some order for introducing terms and definition . For Example ,in legal Memos , we have terms such as "Members "and "Group Member"are these two having the same meaning or desteny .
We will provide this question to the legal advisors, through the legal group
6.Paragraphs 9.3 and 9.3.1 of AoC for review process of gTLD and WHOIS in which the chair of GAC( in consultation with GAC members) has an important role in the compositioon of the review team . In transferring these paragraphs to Bylaws, these roles were not carried forward.Arguments given by two CCWG attendees were not convincing
This point is currently being discussed within WP1 proposals. I am sure they will consider this input.
7 For stress test 18, thje argument quoted from the NTIA announcemnet appearing as background for change is not valid since the NTIA statement has had different objectives and did not pointed to the issue of consensus buildingt in GAC..Moreover the explanations given in thwe table are inconsistent with each other .
Before we go further, we need to consult GAC about this and their
position on the matter required to be sought in BA 53 gac MEETING
This item is on our agenda today, so we'll have the opportunity to exchange during the session.
7. There are threshold for certain actions in the document labelled " community empowerment"paragraph 6.5.2 was /is arbitrarily chosen for example 60% .in other parts of 6.5.5 it is mentioned 20% .Where these thresholds come from There are norms, practices to be followed. Simple majority, 2/3, 3/4, and 4/5 are threshold normally used.For initiation of an action the threshold is 25% and not 20%. Paragrapg 6.5.3 refereed to mechanism in paragraph 6.5.1 ,in the latter no such mechanism is found
This point is currently being discussed within WP1 proposals. I am sure they will consider this input.
8.Inconsistencies between the title and the body of the texts in 6.5.2,6.5.3, 6.5.4 .
I suppose you also refer to WP1.
9. Reference is made to change of /to "Fundamental"Bylaws as well as change of/ to "Bylaws"but there is no mention what is mesant by "fundamental "provirions and how they are distinted from other provisions of Bylaws"nON fUNDAMENTAL"
The "fundamental Bylaw" concept was introduced in Singapore and confirmed during the CCWG call that ensued. WP2 is tassked with definition and scoping of that concept we are introducing. I am confident their input will address your question.
I hope that is helpful to clarify.
Best Mathieu
tHERE ARE MANY MANY CASES LIKE THE ABOVE THAT NEVER BEEN DISCUSSED.
We need to carefully look at these Regards Kavouss .
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thanks Greg. I think we've also used the term "golden bylaw" in the past to describe a similar concept. Best, Keith On Apr 14, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: A "fundamental" bylaw is one that is more difficult to change than a regular bylaw. For instance, there would be a higher threshold for a vote to change a fundamental bylaws. The content of a fundamental bylaw can be just about anything. However, usually fundamental bylaws cover things that are essential to the nature of the organization. Greg On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Kavouss, I provide some answers inline, with the purpose to clarify where matters are currently handled. Le 14/04/2015 10:24, Kavouss Arasteh a écrit : Dear Co-Chairs Thank you very much for your valuable works and tireless follow up action. In order to avoid difficulties that some of us faced on 13 April WP1meeting opening thnhree docuts almost com[plex ones, may I request you to kindly 1. Provide the agenda Adam circulated the agenda yesterday (see attachment) 2. hyperlink the documents in the order of their pre3sentation The relevant links to the available documents are in the attachment 3. fFollow ,as usual, the most practiceabkle order of debate taking agenda and walking through it item by item allowing people to comment.and when walking through a given doc. take it portion by portion or section by section in order to have a more efficient process. that is our plan. 4..Kindly advise the status of the legal assements Memos, 18 March ,4 April,,10 April, 11, April which ones are being discussed where and in what order . In most of these Memos, there are variety of options /alternatives for each subject. when and how we reconcile or at least minimize the number of options and alternatives None of these memos is intended to be a direct work product of our group. However legal advice will provide during our call a general recap of their views, and you (and other colleagues) will have the opportunity to ask questions. 5. Kindly establish some order for introducing terms and definition . For Example ,in legal Memos , we have terms such as "Members "and "Group Member"are these two having the same meaning or desteny . We will provide this question to the legal advisors, through the legal group 6.Paragraphs 9.3 and 9.3.1 of AoC for review process of gTLD and WHOIS in which the chair of GAC( in consultation with GAC members) has an important role in the compositioon of the review team . In transferring these paragraphs to Bylaws, these roles were not carried forward.Arguments given by two CCWG attendees were not convincing This point is currently being discussed within WP1 proposals. I am sure they will consider this input. 7 For stress test 18, thje argument quoted from the NTIA announcemnet appearing as background for change is not valid since the NTIA statement has had different objectives and did not pointed to the issue of consensus buildingt in GAC..Moreover the explanations given in thwe table are inconsistent with each other . Before we go further, we need to consult GAC about this and their position on the matter required to be sought in BA 53 gac MEETING This item is on our agenda today, so we'll have the opportunity to exchange during the session. 7. There are threshold for certain actions in the document labelled " community empowerment"paragraph 6.5.2 was /is arbitrarily chosen for example 60% .in other parts of 6.5.5 it is mentioned 20% .Where these thresholds come from There are norms, practices to be followed. Simple majority, 2/3, 3/4, and 4/5 are threshold normally used.For initiation of an action the threshold is 25% and not 20%. Paragrapg 6.5.3 refereed to mechanism in paragraph 6.5.1 ,in the latter no such mechanism is found This point is currently being discussed within WP1 proposals. I am sure they will consider this input. 8.Inconsistencies between the title and the body of the texts in 6.5.2,6.5.3, 6.5.4 . I suppose you also refer to WP1. 9. Reference is made to change of /to "Fundamental"Bylaws as well as change of/ to "Bylaws"but there is no mention what is mesant by "fundamental "provirions and how they are distinted from other provisions of Bylaws"nON fUNDAMENTAL" The "fundamental Bylaw" concept was introduced in Singapore and confirmed during the CCWG call that ensued. WP2 is tassked with definition and scoping of that concept we are introducing. I am confident their input will address your question. I hope that is helpful to clarify. Best Mathieu tHERE ARE MANY MANY CASES LIKE THE ABOVE THAT NEVER BEEN DISCUSSED. We need to carefully look at these Regards Kavouss . -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06<tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006> mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Twitter : @mathieuweill ***************************** _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thanks Greg, Keith! For Spanish speaking folks is easier to remember "fundamental" (as opposed to "universal" on the one extreme, and "subjective" rights on the other). On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 07:25 Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks Greg.
I think we've also used the term "golden bylaw" in the past to describe a similar concept.
Best, Keith
On Apr 14, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
A "fundamental" bylaw is one that is more difficult to change than a regular bylaw. For instance, there would be a higher threshold for a vote to change a fundamental bylaws.
The content of a fundamental bylaw can be just about anything. However, usually fundamental bylaws cover things that are essential to the nature of the organization.
Greg
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Kavouss,
I provide some answers inline, with the purpose to clarify where matters are currently handled.
Le 14/04/2015 10:24, Kavouss Arasteh a écrit :
Dear Co-Chairs Thank you very much for your valuable works and tireless follow up action. In order to avoid difficulties that some of us faced on 13 April WP1meeting opening thnhree docuts almost com[plex ones, may I request you to kindly 1. Provide the agenda
Adam circulated the agenda yesterday (see attachment)
2. hyperlink the documents in the order of their pre3sentation
The relevant links to the available documents are in the attachment
3. fFollow ,as usual, the most practiceabkle order of debate taking agenda and walking through it item by item allowing people to comment.and when walking through a given doc. take it portion by portion or section by section in order to have a more efficient process.
that is our plan.
4..Kindly advise the status of the legal assements Memos, 18 March ,4 April,,10 April, 11, April which ones are being discussed where and in what order . In most of these Memos, there are variety of options /alternatives for each subject. when and how we reconcile or at least minimize the number of options and alternatives
None of these memos is intended to be a direct work product of our group. However legal advice will provide during our call a general recap of their views, and you (and other colleagues) will have the opportunity to ask questions.
5. Kindly establish some order for introducing terms and definition . For Example ,in legal Memos , we have terms such as "Members "and "Group Member"are these two having the same meaning or desteny .
We will provide this question to the legal advisors, through the legal group
6.Paragraphs 9.3 and 9.3.1 of AoC for review process of gTLD and WHOIS in which the chair of GAC( in consultation with GAC members) has an important role in the compositioon of the review team . In transferring these paragraphs to Bylaws, these roles were not carried forward.Arguments given by two CCWG attendees were not convincing
This point is currently being discussed within WP1 proposals. I am sure they will consider this input.
7 For stress test 18, thje argument quoted from the NTIA announcemnet appearing as background for change is not valid since the NTIA statement has had different objectives and did not pointed to the issue of consensus buildingt in GAC..Moreover the explanations given in thwe table are inconsistent with each other .
Before we go further, we need to consult GAC about this and their
position on the matter required to be sought in BA 53 gac MEETING
This item is on our agenda today, so we'll have the opportunity to exchange during the session.
7. There are threshold for certain actions in the document labelled " community empowerment"paragraph 6.5.2 was /is arbitrarily chosen for example 60% .in other parts of 6.5.5 it is mentioned 20% .Where these thresholds come from There are norms, practices to be followed. Simple majority, 2/3, 3/4, and 4/5 are threshold normally used.For initiation of an action the threshold is 25% and not 20%. Paragrapg 6.5.3 refereed to mechanism in paragraph 6.5.1 ,in the latter no such mechanism is found
This point is currently being discussed within WP1 proposals. I am sure they will consider this input.
8.Inconsistencies between the title and the body of the texts in 6.5.2,6.5.3, 6.5.4 .
I suppose you also refer to WP1.
9. Reference is made to change of /to "Fundamental"Bylaws as well as change of/ to "Bylaws"but there is no mention what is mesant by "fundamental "provirions and how they are distinted from other provisions of Bylaws"nON fUNDAMENTAL"
The "fundamental Bylaw" concept was introduced in Singapore and confirmed during the CCWG call that ensued. WP2 is tassked with definition and scoping of that concept we are introducing. I am confident their input will address your question.
I hope that is helpful to clarify.
Best Mathieu
tHERE ARE MANY MANY CASES LIKE THE ABOVE THAT NEVER BEEN DISCUSSED.
We need to carefully look at these Regards Kavouss .
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Keith, You are correct. There was a conscious decision to shift the term, since "golden bylaw" was ambiguous. Greg On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Carlos Raul <carlosraulg@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Greg, Keith!
For Spanish speaking folks is easier to remember "fundamental" (as opposed to "universal" on the one extreme, and "subjective" rights on the other).
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 07:25 Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks Greg.
I think we've also used the term "golden bylaw" in the past to describe a similar concept.
Best, Keith
On Apr 14, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
A "fundamental" bylaw is one that is more difficult to change than a regular bylaw. For instance, there would be a higher threshold for a vote to change a fundamental bylaws.
The content of a fundamental bylaw can be just about anything. However, usually fundamental bylaws cover things that are essential to the nature of the organization.
Greg
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Kavouss,
I provide some answers inline, with the purpose to clarify where matters are currently handled.
Le 14/04/2015 10:24, Kavouss Arasteh a écrit :
Dear Co-Chairs Thank you very much for your valuable works and tireless follow up action. In order to avoid difficulties that some of us faced on 13 April WP1meeting opening thnhree docuts almost com[plex ones, may I request you to kindly 1. Provide the agenda
Adam circulated the agenda yesterday (see attachment)
2. hyperlink the documents in the order of their pre3sentation
The relevant links to the available documents are in the attachment
3. fFollow ,as usual, the most practiceabkle order of debate taking agenda and walking through it item by item allowing people to comment.and when walking through a given doc. take it portion by portion or section by section in order to have a more efficient process.
that is our plan.
4..Kindly advise the status of the legal assements Memos, 18 March ,4 April,,10 April, 11, April which ones are being discussed where and in what order . In most of these Memos, there are variety of options /alternatives for each subject. when and how we reconcile or at least minimize the number of options and alternatives
None of these memos is intended to be a direct work product of our group. However legal advice will provide during our call a general recap of their views, and you (and other colleagues) will have the opportunity to ask questions.
5. Kindly establish some order for introducing terms and definition . For Example ,in legal Memos , we have terms such as "Members "and "Group Member"are these two having the same meaning or desteny .
We will provide this question to the legal advisors, through the legal group
6.Paragraphs 9.3 and 9.3.1 of AoC for review process of gTLD and WHOIS in which the chair of GAC( in consultation with GAC members) has an important role in the compositioon of the review team . In transferring these paragraphs to Bylaws, these roles were not carried forward.Arguments given by two CCWG attendees were not convincing
This point is currently being discussed within WP1 proposals. I am sure they will consider this input.
7 For stress test 18, thje argument quoted from the NTIA announcemnet appearing as background for change is not valid since the NTIA statement has had different objectives and did not pointed to the issue of consensus buildingt in GAC..Moreover the explanations given in thwe table are inconsistent with each other .
Before we go further, we need to consult GAC about this and their
position on the matter required to be sought in BA 53 gac MEETING
This item is on our agenda today, so we'll have the opportunity to exchange during the session.
7. There are threshold for certain actions in the document labelled " community empowerment"paragraph 6.5.2 was /is arbitrarily chosen for example 60% .in other parts of 6.5.5 it is mentioned 20% .Where these thresholds come from There are norms, practices to be followed. Simple majority, 2/3, 3/4, and 4/5 are threshold normally used.For initiation of an action the threshold is 25% and not 20%. Paragrapg 6.5.3 refereed to mechanism in paragraph 6.5.1 ,in the latter no such mechanism is found
This point is currently being discussed within WP1 proposals. I am sure they will consider this input.
8.Inconsistencies between the title and the body of the texts in 6.5.2,6.5.3, 6.5.4 .
I suppose you also refer to WP1.
9. Reference is made to change of /to "Fundamental"Bylaws as well as change of/ to "Bylaws"but there is no mention what is mesant by "fundamental "provirions and how they are distinted from other provisions of Bylaws"nON fUNDAMENTAL"
The "fundamental Bylaw" concept was introduced in Singapore and confirmed during the CCWG call that ensued. WP2 is tassked with definition and scoping of that concept we are introducing. I am confident their input will address your question.
I hope that is helpful to clarify.
Best Mathieu
tHERE ARE MANY MANY CASES LIKE THE ABOVE THAT NEVER BEEN DISCUSSED.
We need to carefully look at these Regards Kavouss .
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (6)
-
Carlos Raul -
Drazek, Keith -
Greg Shatan -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Mathieu Weill -
Thomas Rickert