Recommendation 12 - work stream 2 - 1st reading conclusions
Dear Colleagues, Please find below the main conclusions of our deliberations during call #74. The updated document is attached. 1. Clarifications to Interim Bylaws seem to be addressing most of the Boards concerns (pending further confirmation by Icann Board), by highlighting that WS2 will be following similar rules as WS1 : consensus recommendations, endorsement by Chartering Orgs, ability for the Board to engage special dialogue, 2/3 threshold for such Board decisions . 2. Edits to the documents will include focus on fact that WS2 deliberations will be open to all (similar to WS1) 3. Timeframe discussion : target dates are needed, but hard deadlines would not be appropriate or helpful. Document will be reviewed in line with that direction. 4. Enhancing Ombudsman role and function is confirmed as a WS2 item 1. Summary graphics has been updated (see page 4) 2. Becky and Avri to provide a paragraph to describe the type of enhancements that will be considered 2nd reading is planned during next Tuesdays call. Best, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
Several comments in the public comment period called for a specific WS2 transparency issue of “transparency over board deliberations”. NCSG was among those commenters. How do we include the views of those who’s comments weren’t taken into account in the document / discussion for 1st reading on Rec. 12 in yesterday’s call? The GNSO’s comments don’t come in until next week, so how will they be incorporated into Rec. 12 if we’ve already done the 2 readings before we’ve even seen the GNSO view on Rec. 12? It looks like only the board’s concerns were reflected in the document / discussion for the 1st reading of Rec #12. How do we include other stakeholder concerns in these discussions? Thanks, Robin
On Jan 6, 2016, at 6:02 AM, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
<Formatted-Annex 12-PROOFED-1stREAD.pdf>
Dear All, The situation on how the formal comments from chartering organizations would be considred and taken into account is not clear. The deadline is 22 January. Consequently we MUST WAIT untgil the deadline is expired ,in taking into account the comments then conclude on each recommendations This is AN IMPORTANT ISSUE Regards KAVOUSS 2016-01-06 23:26 GMT+01:00 Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org>:
Several comments in the public comment period called for a specific WS2 transparency issue of “transparency over board deliberations”. NCSG was among those commenters. How do we include the views of those who’s comments weren’t taken into account in the document / discussion for 1st reading on Rec. 12 in yesterday’s call? The GNSO’s comments don’t come in until next week, so how will they be incorporated into Rec. 12 if we’ve already done the 2 readings before we’ve even seen the GNSO view on Rec. 12? It looks like only the board’s concerns were reflected in the document / discussion for the 1st reading of Rec #12. How do we include other stakeholder concerns in these discussions?
Thanks, Robin
On Jan 6, 2016, at 6:02 AM, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
<Formatted-Annex 12-PROOFED-1stREAD.pdf>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Robin, A specific mention to transparency on Board deliberations has been added in the amended document (please see page 7 of the document). If you feel this does not properly address the issue you’ve raised, please let us know so we can better address your concern. Best regards, León
El 06/01/2016, a las 4:26 p.m., Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> escribió:
Several comments in the public comment period called for a specific WS2 transparency issue of “transparency over board deliberations”. NCSG was among those commenters. How do we include the views of those who’s comments weren’t taken into account in the document / discussion for 1st reading on Rec. 12 in yesterday’s call? The GNSO’s comments don’t come in until next week, so how will they be incorporated into Rec. 12 if we’ve already done the 2 readings before we’ve even seen the GNSO view on Rec. 12? It looks like only the board’s concerns were reflected in the document / discussion for the 1st reading of Rec #12. How do we include other stakeholder concerns in these discussions?
Thanks, Robin
On Jan 6, 2016, at 6:02 AM, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
<Formatted-Annex 12-PROOFED-1stREAD.pdf>
participants (4)
-
Kavouss Arasteh -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Mathieu Weill -
Robin Gross