Fwd: Draft Agenda & Papers - WP1 Meeting #22 (28 July at 19h UTC)
Dear CCWG members Please find attached a number of papers up for discussion on today's call in about three hours - these are final drafts, the marked ups and background versions are on the Wiki at the link below. Also attached is a summary noting what the key most recent changes have been. I particularly draw your attention to the paper which starts 5A2 on voting power, updated following the WP1 call this morning and now allocating 5 votes per SO and AC, and with an opt-in mechanism proposed. Speak with you soon, Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Date: 28 July 2015 at 21:20 Subject: Draft Agenda & Papers - WP1 Meeting #22 (28 July at 19h UTC) To: "wp1@icann.org" <wp1@icann.org> Hi all Here is the draft agenda and the documents for the WP1 call happening at 19-21h UTC on Tuesday 28 July 2015. Also attached is the summary of issues. *Please read these documents before the call - the working method will be an "Are There Any Final Comments To Make/Did Anything Decided at CCWG Affect This Draft" approach...* [the reason for this is that our meeting finishes only 3 hrs before the absolute Freeze date for the *1. Review of Agenda.* *2. Any outstanding issues from CCWG meeting* of 28 July (12h-14h) *3. Final Review of the Following Documents* (clean PDFs of "final drafts" attached - mark ups and Word versions to come on Wiki site at < https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents> ) Fundamental Bylaws (3B) Community Mechanism description (5A1) Community Mech - voting weights (5A2) -- NOTE *an update to come yet from Bernie and Alan re quorums etc)* Community Mech - ICANN community forum (5A3) Comm Power - Budgets and Plans (5B1) Comm Power - Standard Bylaws (5B2) Comm Power - Removal of ICANN directors (5B3) Comm Power - Recall of ICANN Board (5B4) Note: Steve's paper on incorporating AOC reviews into the ICANN bylaws (6-2) had agreement to incorporate the text on document disclosure etc on 27 July, so that paper is done and dusted. It's attached just so there is a complete collection here, but is not for discussion. *4. Next Task: Finalising responses to Public Comments from PC1* *5. Any other matters* -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet * -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *
I still believe that ACs should remain in an advisory role and not additionally have votes. We seem to be fundamentally changing the roles of ICANN's constituent parts in ways that clearly have not been fully examined. The SO's are charged with making policy and ACs are charged with advising the board in ICANN's existing structure, but we will be eliminating that barrier in many cases with this mechanism, with SO's giving away most of this power to ACs. Even if we could find consensus in such a re-balancing and re-assignment of roles (and I'm not sure we can), I don't see how Congress or the NTIA could accept such a massive reformulation and subversion of the SO's interests. Advisory Committees are "advisory" and we should not change that through this process, despite the crushing pressure to go along for a fast transition. Robin On Jul 28, 2015, at 2:21 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:
Dear CCWG members
Please find attached a number of papers up for discussion on today's call in about three hours - these are final drafts, the marked ups and background versions are on the Wiki at the link below.
Also attached is a summary noting what the key most recent changes have been.
I particularly draw your attention to the paper which starts 5A2 on voting power, updated following the WP1 call this morning and now allocating 5 votes per SO and AC, and with an opt-in mechanism proposed.
Speak with you soon,
Jordan
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Date: 28 July 2015 at 21:20 Subject: Draft Agenda & Papers - WP1 Meeting #22 (28 July at 19h UTC) To: "wp1@icann.org" <wp1@icann.org>
Hi all
Here is the draft agenda and the documents for the WP1 call happening at 19-21h UTC on Tuesday 28 July 2015.
Also attached is the summary of issues.
Please read these documents before the call - the working method will be an "Are There Any Final Comments To Make/Did Anything Decided at CCWG Affect This Draft" approach...
[the reason for this is that our meeting finishes only 3 hrs before the absolute Freeze date for the
1. Review of Agenda.
2. Any outstanding issues from CCWG meeting of 28 July (12h-14h)
3. Final Review of the Following Documents (clean PDFs of "final drafts" attached - mark ups and Word versions to come on Wiki site at <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents> )
Fundamental Bylaws (3B)
Community Mechanism description (5A1) Community Mech - voting weights (5A2) -- NOTE an update to come yet from Bernie and Alan re quorums etc) Community Mech - ICANN community forum (5A3)
Comm Power - Budgets and Plans (5B1) Comm Power - Standard Bylaws (5B2) Comm Power - Removal of ICANN directors (5B3) Comm Power - Recall of ICANN Board (5B4)
Note: Steve's paper on incorporating AOC reviews into the ICANN bylaws (6-2) had agreement to incorporate the text on document disclosure etc on 27 July, so that paper is done and dusted. It's attached just so there is a complete collection here, but is not for discussion.
4. Next Task: Finalising responses to Public Comments from PC1
5. Any other matters
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
<3B-Fundamental-Bylaws-FinalDraft.pdf><5A-Community-Mechanism-Descr-FinalDraft.pdf><5A2-Community-Mechanism-Voting-PenultimateDraft.pdf><5A3-Comm-Mech-ICANNCommForum-FinalDraft.pdf><5B1-Comm-Power-BudgetAndPlans-FinalDraft.pdf><5B2-Comm-Power-StandardBylaws-FinalDraft.pdf><5B3-Comm-Power-RemovingDirectors-FinalDraft.pdf><5B4-Comm-Power-RecallingICANNBoard-FinalDraft.pdf><6-AOC-Reviews-in-Bylaws-FinalDraft.pdf><2015-07-28-WP1-summary-to-CCWG.pdf>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Robin: Call it what you will, but the fundamental problem is indeed ICANN's existing structure. The SO's and notably GNSO have led ICANN into policies that are fundamentally flawed and do not respect the public interest, notably regarding competition policy. The AC's and the Board have failed to redress the balance. Whether the proposed structure may correct that is - as far as I am concerned at present - a matter for conjecture. Regards Christopher On 28 Jul 2015, at 12:55, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I still believe that ACs should remain in an advisory role and not additionally have votes. We seem to be fundamentally changing the roles of ICANN's constituent parts in ways that clearly have not been fully examined. The SO's are charged with making policy and ACs are charged with advising the board in ICANN's existing structure, but we will be eliminating that barrier in many cases with this mechanism, with SO's giving away most of this power to ACs. Even if we could find consensus in such a re-balancing and re-assignment of roles (and I'm not sure we can), I don't see how Congress or the NTIA could accept such a massive reformulation and subversion of the SO's interests. Advisory Committees are "advisory" and we should not change that through this process, despite the crushing pressure to go along for a fast transition.
Robin
On Jul 28, 2015, at 2:21 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:
Dear CCWG members
Please find attached a number of papers up for discussion on today's call in about three hours - these are final drafts, the marked ups and background versions are on the Wiki at the link below.
Also attached is a summary noting what the key most recent changes have been.
I particularly draw your attention to the paper which starts 5A2 on voting power, updated following the WP1 call this morning and now allocating 5 votes per SO and AC, and with an opt-in mechanism proposed.
Speak with you soon,
Jordan
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Date: 28 July 2015 at 21:20 Subject: Draft Agenda & Papers - WP1 Meeting #22 (28 July at 19h UTC) To: "wp1@icann.org" <wp1@icann.org>
Hi all
Here is the draft agenda and the documents for the WP1 call happening at 19-21h UTC on Tuesday 28 July 2015.
Also attached is the summary of issues.
Please read these documents before the call - the working method will be an "Are There Any Final Comments To Make/Did Anything Decided at CCWG Affect This Draft" approach...
[the reason for this is that our meeting finishes only 3 hrs before the absolute Freeze date for the
1. Review of Agenda.
2. Any outstanding issues from CCWG meeting of 28 July (12h-14h)
3. Final Review of the Following Documents (clean PDFs of "final drafts" attached - mark ups and Word versions to come on Wiki site at <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents> )
Fundamental Bylaws (3B)
Community Mechanism description (5A1) Community Mech - voting weights (5A2) -- NOTE an update to come yet from Bernie and Alan re quorums etc) Community Mech - ICANN community forum (5A3)
Comm Power - Budgets and Plans (5B1) Comm Power - Standard Bylaws (5B2) Comm Power - Removal of ICANN directors (5B3) Comm Power - Recall of ICANN Board (5B4)
Note: Steve's paper on incorporating AOC reviews into the ICANN bylaws (6-2) had agreement to incorporate the text on document disclosure etc on 27 July, so that paper is done and dusted. It's attached just so there is a complete collection here, but is not for discussion.
4. Next Task: Finalising responses to Public Comments from PC1
5. Any other matters
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
<3B-Fundamental-Bylaws-FinalDraft.pdf><5A-Community-Mechanism-Descr-FinalDraft.pdf><5A2-Community-Mechanism-Voting-PenultimateDraft.pdf><5A3-Comm-Mech-ICANNCommForum-FinalDraft.pdf><5B1-Comm-Power-BudgetAndPlans-FinalDraft.pdf><5B2-Comm-Power-StandardBylaws-FinalDraft.pdf><5B3-Comm-Power-RemovingDirectors-FinalDraft.pdf><5B4-Comm-Power-RecallingICANNBoard-FinalDraft.pdf><6-AOC-Reviews-in-Bylaws-FinalDraft.pdf><2015-07-28-WP1-summary-to-CCWG.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Robin Things are already changing though: for example following an ATRT recommendation, the GAC is now able to intervene on public interest grounds in the early stages of policy development. The current problem is that the participation of representatives of governments and their citizens in community-wide voting procedures may prove unworkable if not technically impossible (some GAC reps at national level are taking legal advice on this). Furthermore, these procedures may risk subordinating the global public interest if the GAC position on an issue (which conceivably it could also have initiated) were to be outvoted by other constituencies for example. In that scenario, I would expect that the view of governments would be that such community decisions would be rendered fundamentally unsafe. Such constraints on participation present challenges to how government representatives fulfil their obligations in the new architecture of ICANN accountability and community empowerment but they should not be insurmountable: we will have to be inventive with regard to the precise modalities for governments to opt into these community-wide processes to ensure that the public interest is served when high level decisions are taken by the community that will impact on the Internet's critical infrastructure. Kind regards Mark Mark Carvell United Kingdom Representative on the GAC On 28 July 2015 at 11:55, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I still believe that ACs should remain in an advisory role and not additionally have votes. We seem to be fundamentally changing the roles of ICANN's constituent parts in ways that clearly have not been fully examined. The SO's are charged with making policy and ACs are charged with advising the board in ICANN's existing structure, but we will be eliminating that barrier in many cases with this mechanism, with SO's giving away most of this power to ACs. Even if we could find consensus in such a re-balancing and re-assignment of roles (and I'm not sure we can), I don't see how Congress or the NTIA could accept such a massive reformulation and subversion of the SO's interests. Advisory Committees are "advisory" and we should not change that through this process, despite the crushing pressure to go along for a fast transition.
Robin
On Jul 28, 2015, at 2:21 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:
Dear CCWG members
Please find attached a number of papers up for discussion on today's call in about three hours - these are final drafts, the marked ups and background versions are on the Wiki at the link below.
Also attached is a summary noting what the key most recent changes have been.
I particularly draw your attention to the paper which starts 5A2 on voting power, updated following the WP1 call this morning and now allocating 5 votes per SO and AC, and with an opt-in mechanism proposed.
Speak with you soon,
Jordan
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Date: 28 July 2015 at 21:20 Subject: Draft Agenda & Papers - WP1 Meeting #22 (28 July at 19h UTC) To: "wp1@icann.org" <wp1@icann.org>
Hi all
Here is the draft agenda and the documents for the WP1 call happening at 19-21h UTC on Tuesday 28 July 2015.
Also attached is the summary of issues.
*Please read these documents before the call - the working method will be an "Are There Any Final Comments To Make/Did Anything Decided at CCWG Affect This Draft" approach...*
[the reason for this is that our meeting finishes only 3 hrs before the absolute Freeze date for the
*1. Review of Agenda.*
*2. Any outstanding issues from CCWG meeting* of 28 July (12h-14h)
*3. Final Review of the Following Documents* (clean PDFs of "final drafts" attached - mark ups and Word versions to come on Wiki site at < https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents> )
Fundamental Bylaws (3B)
Community Mechanism description (5A1) Community Mech - voting weights (5A2) -- NOTE *an update to come yet from Bernie and Alan re quorums etc)* Community Mech - ICANN community forum (5A3)
Comm Power - Budgets and Plans (5B1) Comm Power - Standard Bylaws (5B2) Comm Power - Removal of ICANN directors (5B3) Comm Power - Recall of ICANN Board (5B4)
Note: Steve's paper on incorporating AOC reviews into the ICANN bylaws (6-2) had agreement to incorporate the text on document disclosure etc on 27 July, so that paper is done and dusted. It's attached just so there is a complete collection here, but is not for discussion.
*4. Next Task: Finalising responses to Public Comments from PC1*
*5. Any other matters*
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
*A better world through a better Internet *
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
*A better world through a better Internet *
<3B-Fundamental-Bylaws-FinalDraft.pdf> <5A-Community-Mechanism-Descr-FinalDraft.pdf> <5A2-Community-Mechanism-Voting-PenultimateDraft.pdf> <5A3-Comm-Mech-ICANNCommForum-FinalDraft.pdf> <5B1-Comm-Power-BudgetAndPlans-FinalDraft.pdf> <5B2-Comm-Power-StandardBylaws-FinalDraft.pdf> <5B3-Comm-Power-RemovingDirectors-FinalDraft.pdf> <5B4-Comm-Power-RecallingICANNBoard-FinalDraft.pdf> <6-AOC-Reviews-in-Bylaws-FinalDraft.pdf> <2015-07-28-WP1-summary-to-CCWG.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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
-- Mark Carvell Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062
Well said ;-) GAC is still working on this… Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Mark Carvell Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Juli 2015 14:01 An: Robin Gross Cc: Accountability Cross Community Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Draft Agenda & Papers - WP1 Meeting #22 (28 July at 19h UTC) Dear Robin Things are already changing though: for example following an ATRT recommendation, the GAC is now able to intervene on public interest grounds in the early stages of policy development. The current problem is that the participation of representatives of governments and their citizens in community-wide voting procedures may prove unworkable if not technically impossible (some GAC reps at national level are taking legal advice on this). Furthermore, these procedures may risk subordinating the global public interest if the GAC position on an issue (which conceivably it could also have initiated) were to be outvoted by other constituencies for example. In that scenario, I would expect that the view of governments would be that such community decisions would be rendered fundamentally unsafe. Such constraints on participation present challenges to how government representatives fulfil their obligations in the new architecture of ICANN accountability and community empowerment but they should not be insurmountable: we will have to be inventive with regard to the precise modalities for governments to opt into these community-wide processes to ensure that the public interest is served when high level decisions are taken by the community that will impact on the Internet's critical infrastructure. Kind regards Mark Mark Carvell United Kingdom Representative on the GAC On 28 July 2015 at 11:55, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: I still believe that ACs should remain in an advisory role and not additionally have votes. We seem to be fundamentally changing the roles of ICANN's constituent parts in ways that clearly have not been fully examined. The SO's are charged with making policy and ACs are charged with advising the board in ICANN's existing structure, but we will be eliminating that barrier in many cases with this mechanism, with SO's giving away most of this power to ACs. Even if we could find consensus in such a re-balancing and re-assignment of roles (and I'm not sure we can), I don't see how Congress or the NTIA could accept such a massive reformulation and subversion of the SO's interests. Advisory Committees are "advisory" and we should not change that through this process, despite the crushing pressure to go along for a fast transition. Robin On Jul 28, 2015, at 2:21 AM, Jordan Carter wrote: Dear CCWG members Please find attached a number of papers up for discussion on today's call in about three hours - these are final drafts, the marked ups and background versions are on the Wiki at the link below. Also attached is a summary noting what the key most recent changes have been. I particularly draw your attention to the paper which starts 5A2 on voting power, updated following the WP1 call this morning and now allocating 5 votes per SO and AC, and with an opt-in mechanism proposed. Speak with you soon, Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Date: 28 July 2015 at 21:20 Subject: Draft Agenda & Papers - WP1 Meeting #22 (28 July at 19h UTC) To: "wp1@icann.org<mailto:wp1@icann.org>" <wp1@icann.org<mailto:wp1@icann.org>> Hi all Here is the draft agenda and the documents for the WP1 call happening at 19-21h UTC on Tuesday 28 July 2015. Also attached is the summary of issues. Please read these documents before the call - the working method will be an "Are There Any Final Comments To Make/Did Anything Decided at CCWG Affect This Draft" approach... [the reason for this is that our meeting finishes only 3 hrs before the absolute Freeze date for the 1. Review of Agenda. 2. Any outstanding issues from CCWG meeting of 28 July (12h-14h) 3. Final Review of the Following Documents (clean PDFs of "final drafts" attached - mark ups and Word versions to come on Wiki site at <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents> ) Fundamental Bylaws (3B) Community Mechanism description (5A1) Community Mech - voting weights (5A2) -- NOTE an update to come yet from Bernie and Alan re quorums etc) Community Mech - ICANN community forum (5A3) Comm Power - Budgets and Plans (5B1) Comm Power - Standard Bylaws (5B2) Comm Power - Removal of ICANN directors (5B3) Comm Power - Recall of ICANN Board (5B4) Note: Steve's paper on incorporating AOC reviews into the ICANN bylaws (6-2) had agreement to incorporate the text on document disclosure etc on 27 July, so that paper is done and dusted. It's attached just so there is a complete collection here, but is not for discussion. 4. Next Task: Finalising responses to Public Comments from PC1 5. Any other matters -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet <3B-Fundamental-Bylaws-FinalDraft.pdf><5A-Community-Mechanism-Descr-FinalDraft.pdf><5A2-Community-Mechanism-Voting-PenultimateDraft.pdf><5A3-Comm-Mech-ICANNCommForum-FinalDraft.pdf><5B1-Comm-Power-BudgetAndPlans-FinalDraft.pdf><5B2-Comm-Power-StandardBylaws-FinalDraft.pdf><5B3-Comm-Power-RemovingDirectors-FinalDraft.pdf><5B4-Comm-Power-RecallingICANNBoard-FinalDraft.pdf><6-AOC-Reviews-in-Bylaws-FinalDraft.pdf><2015-07-28-WP1-summary-to-CCWG.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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 -- Mark Carvell Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk> tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062
Hi Mark, all: I have a question about one part of your statement: On 29 July 2015 at 00:00, Mark Carvell <mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk> wrote: <snip>
Furthermore, these procedures may risk subordinating the global public interest if the GAC position on an issue (which conceivably it could also have initiated) were to be outvoted by other constituencies for example. In that scenario, I would expect that the view of governments would be that such community decisions would be rendered fundamentally unsafe.
Unless I am mistaken, this can happen today. The ICANN Board is obliged to pay attention to GAC advice, but in the end is not obliged to follow it. That would presumably be the same in a context where GAC had a proportion of votes in a community mechanism, it could also see its concerns considered seriously but not adopted. You aren't implying or suggesting that this should change, are you? thanks, Jordan
Such constraints on participation present challenges to how government representatives fulfil their obligations in the new architecture of ICANN accountability and community empowerment but they should not be insurmountable: we will have to be inventive with regard to the precise modalities for governments to opt into these community-wide processes to ensure that the public interest is served when high level decisions are taken by the community that will impact on the Internet's critical infrastructure.
Kind regards
Mark
Mark Carvell United Kingdom Representative on the GAC
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *
Mark, With respect, the GAC has ALWAYS been able to intervene at any time. Other than that, I understand your position. Cheers, Chris
On 28 Jul 2015, at 22:00 , Mark Carvell <mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk> wrote:
Dear Robin
Things are already changing though: for example following an ATRT recommendation, the GAC is now able to intervene on public interest grounds in the early stages of policy development.
The current problem is that the participation of representatives of governments and their citizens in community-wide voting procedures may prove unworkable if not technically impossible (some GAC reps at national level are taking legal advice on this). Furthermore, these procedures may risk subordinating the global public interest if the GAC position on an issue (which conceivably it could also have initiated) were to be outvoted by other constituencies for example. In that scenario, I would expect that the view of governments would be that such community decisions would be rendered fundamentally unsafe.
Such constraints on participation present challenges to how government representatives fulfil their obligations in the new architecture of ICANN accountability and community empowerment but they should not be insurmountable: we will have to be inventive with regard to the precise modalities for governments to opt into these community-wide processes to ensure that the public interest is served when high level decisions are taken by the community that will impact on the Internet's critical infrastructure.
Kind regards
Mark
Mark Carvell United Kingdom Representative on the GAC
On 28 July 2015 at 11:55, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: I still believe that ACs should remain in an advisory role and not additionally have votes. We seem to be fundamentally changing the roles of ICANN's constituent parts in ways that clearly have not been fully examined. The SO's are charged with making policy and ACs are charged with advising the board in ICANN's existing structure, but we will be eliminating that barrier in many cases with this mechanism, with SO's giving away most of this power to ACs. Even if we could find consensus in such a re-balancing and re-assignment of roles (and I'm not sure we can), I don't see how Congress or the NTIA could accept such a massive reformulation and subversion of the SO's interests. Advisory Committees are "advisory" and we should not change that through this process, despite the crushing pressure to go along for a fast transition.
Robin
On Jul 28, 2015, at 2:21 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:
Dear CCWG members
Please find attached a number of papers up for discussion on today's call in about three hours - these are final drafts, the marked ups and background versions are on the Wiki at the link below.
Also attached is a summary noting what the key most recent changes have been.
I particularly draw your attention to the paper which starts 5A2 on voting power, updated following the WP1 call this morning and now allocating 5 votes per SO and AC, and with an opt-in mechanism proposed.
Speak with you soon,
Jordan
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Date: 28 July 2015 at 21:20 Subject: Draft Agenda & Papers - WP1 Meeting #22 (28 July at 19h UTC) To: "wp1@icann.org <mailto:wp1@icann.org>" <wp1@icann.org <mailto:wp1@icann.org>>
Hi all
Here is the draft agenda and the documents for the WP1 call happening at 19-21h UTC on Tuesday 28 July 2015.
Also attached is the summary of issues.
Please read these documents before the call - the working method will be an "Are There Any Final Comments To Make/Did Anything Decided at CCWG Affect This Draft" approach...
[the reason for this is that our meeting finishes only 3 hrs before the absolute Freeze date for the
1. Review of Agenda.
2. Any outstanding issues from CCWG meeting of 28 July (12h-14h)
3. Final Review of the Following Documents (clean PDFs of "final drafts" attached - mark ups and Word versions to come on Wiki site at <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents>> )
Fundamental Bylaws (3B)
Community Mechanism description (5A1) Community Mech - voting weights (5A2) -- NOTE an update to come yet from Bernie and Alan re quorums etc) Community Mech - ICANN community forum (5A3)
Comm Power - Budgets and Plans (5B1) Comm Power - Standard Bylaws (5B2) Comm Power - Removal of ICANN directors (5B3) Comm Power - Recall of ICANN Board (5B4)
Note: Steve's paper on incorporating AOC reviews into the ICANN bylaws (6-2) had agreement to incorporate the text on document disclosure etc on 27 July, so that paper is done and dusted. It's attached just so there is a complete collection here, but is not for discussion.
4. Next Task: Finalising responses to Public Comments from PC1
5. Any other matters
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
<3B-Fundamental-Bylaws-FinalDraft.pdf><5A-Community-Mechanism-Descr-FinalDraft.pdf><5A2-Community-Mechanism-Voting-PenultimateDraft.pdf><5A3-Comm-Mech-ICANNCommForum-FinalDraft.pdf><5B1-Comm-Power-BudgetAndPlans-FinalDraft.pdf><5B2-Comm-Power-StandardBylaws-FinalDraft.pdf><5B3-Comm-Power-RemovingDirectors-FinalDraft.pdf><5B4-Comm-Power-RecallingICANNBoard-FinalDraft.pdf><6-AOC-Reviews-in-Bylaws-FinalDraft.pdf><2015-07-28-WP1-summary-to-CCWG.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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 <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
-- Mark Carvell Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk <mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk> tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, By the same token, in the tradional understanding of ICANN, SOs are only empowered to make recommendations on the subject matter of the SO, i.e. only on gTLDs, ccTLDs or Numbers. We assrt our right to comment on other stuff, but there is no bylaws indication of this empowerment. It is only the ACs that are empowered to advise on any issue having to do with ICANN. Should we limit the votes of SOss if these votes are not in their specific areas of responsibility? The issues that we may be voting on are about the general well being of ICANN. And to me that seems to be equally in the bailiwick of all the ACSO. avri Note I do not speak for NCSG in the CCWG, Robin does. On 28-Jul-15 12:55, Robin Gross wrote:
I still believe that ACs should remain in an advisory role and not additionally have votes. We seem to be fundamentally changing the roles of ICANN's constituent parts in ways that clearly have not been fully examined. The SO's are charged with making policy and ACs are charged with advising the board in ICANN's existing structure, but we will be eliminating that barrier in many cases with this mechanism, with SO's giving away most of this power to ACs. Even if we could find consensus in such a re-balancing and re-assignment of roles (and I'm not sure we can), I don't see how Congress or the NTIA could accept such a massive reformulation and subversion of the SO's interests. Advisory Committees are "advisory" and we should not change that through this process, despite the crushing pressure to go along for a fast transition.
Robin
On Jul 28, 2015, at 2:21 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:
Dear CCWG members
Please find attached a number of papers up for discussion on today's call in about three hours - these are final drafts, the marked ups and background versions are on the Wiki at the link below.
Also attached is a summary noting what the key most recent changes have been.
I particularly draw your attention to the paper which starts 5A2 on voting power, updated following the WP1 call this morning and now allocating 5 votes per SO and AC, and with an opt-in mechanism proposed.
Speak with you soon,
Jordan
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Jordan Carter* <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Date: 28 July 2015 at 21:20 Subject: Draft Agenda & Papers - WP1 Meeting #22 (28 July at 19h UTC) To: "wp1@icann.org <mailto:wp1@icann.org>" <wp1@icann.org <mailto:wp1@icann.org>>
Hi all
Here is the draft agenda and the documents for the WP1 call happening at 19-21h UTC on Tuesday 28 July 2015.
Also attached is the summary of issues.
*Please read these documents before the call - the working method will be an "Are There Any Final Comments To Make/Did Anything Decided at CCWG Affect This Draft" approach...*
[the reason for this is that our meeting finishes only 3 hrs before the absolute Freeze date for the
*1. Review of Agenda.*
*2. Any outstanding issues from CCWG meeting* of 28 July (12h-14h)
*3. Final Review of the Following Documents* (clean PDFs of "final drafts" attached - mark ups and Word versions to come on Wiki site at <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents> )
Fundamental Bylaws (3B)
Community Mechanism description (5A1) Community Mech - voting weights (5A2) -- NOTE *an update to come yet from Bernie and Alan re quorums etc)* * *Community Mech - ICANN community forum (5A3)
Comm Power - Budgets and Plans (5B1) Comm Power - Standard Bylaws (5B2) Comm Power - Removal of ICANN directors (5B3) Comm Power - Recall of ICANN Board (5B4)
Note: Steve's paper on incorporating AOC reviews into the ICANN bylaws (6-2) had agreement to incorporate the text on document disclosure etc on 27 July, so that paper is done and dusted. It's attached just so there is a complete collection here, but is not for discussion.
*4. Next Task: Finalising responses to Public Comments from PC1*
*5. Any other matters*
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter
/A better world through a better Internet /
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter
/A better world through a better Internet /
<3B-Fundamental-Bylaws-FinalDraft.pdf><5A-Community-Mechanism-Descr-FinalDraft.pdf><5A2-Community-Mechanism-Voting-PenultimateDraft.pdf><5A3-Comm-Mech-ICANNCommForum-FinalDraft.pdf><5B1-Comm-Power-BudgetAndPlans-FinalDraft.pdf><5B2-Comm-Power-StandardBylaws-FinalDraft.pdf><5B3-Comm-Power-RemovingDirectors-FinalDraft.pdf><5B4-Comm-Power-RecallingICANNBoard-FinalDraft.pdf><6-AOC-Reviews-in-Bylaws-FinalDraft.pdf><2015-07-28-WP1-summary-to-CCWG.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Hi Avri,
SOs are only empowered to make recommendations on the subject matter of the SO, i.e. only on gTLDs, ccTLDs or Numbers.
Agree.
We assrt our right to comment on other stuff, but there is no bylaws indication of this empowerment.
Who is we?
It is only the ACs that are empowered to advise on any issue having to do with ICANN.
Agreed. So that means that the non-contracting party bits of GNSO are only empowered to comment on gTLD matters, doesn’t it? Assuming that is correct then it seems to me that in respect to 'ICANN’s general well being’ we should not draw a distinction between ACs and SOs. SOs and ACs are empowered to comment on 'ICANN’s general well being’ with authority/weight and bits of the SOs and ACs are entitled to comment (as is anyone as an individual) but not with the same authority and weight as comments on SOs and ACs as a whole. Does that make sense? Cheers, Chris
On 28 Jul 2015, at 22:35 , Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
By the same token, in the tradional understanding of ICANN, SOs are only empowered to make recommendations on the subject matter of the SO, i.e. only on gTLDs, ccTLDs or Numbers. We assrt our right to comment on other stuff, but there is no bylaws indication of this empowerment.
It is only the ACs that are empowered to advise on any issue having to do with ICANN.
Should we limit the votes of SOss if these votes are not in their specific areas of responsibility?
The issues that we may be voting on are about the general well being of ICANN. And to me that seems to be equally in the bailiwick of all the ACSO.
avri
Note I do not speak for NCSG in the CCWG, Robin does.
On 28-Jul-15 12:55, Robin Gross wrote:
I still believe that ACs should remain in an advisory role and not additionally have votes. We seem to be fundamentally changing the roles of ICANN's constituent parts in ways that clearly have not been fully examined. The SO's are charged with making policy and ACs are charged with advising the board in ICANN's existing structure, but we will be eliminating that barrier in many cases with this mechanism, with SO's giving away most of this power to ACs. Even if we could find consensus in such a re-balancing and re-assignment of roles (and I'm not sure we can), I don't see how Congress or the NTIA could accept such a massive reformulation and subversion of the SO's interests. Advisory Committees are "advisory" and we should not change that through this process, despite the crushing pressure to go along for a fast transition.
Robin
On Jul 28, 2015, at 2:21 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:
Dear CCWG members
Please find attached a number of papers up for discussion on today's call in about three hours - these are final drafts, the marked ups and background versions are on the Wiki at the link below.
Also attached is a summary noting what the key most recent changes have been.
I particularly draw your attention to the paper which starts 5A2 on voting power, updated following the WP1 call this morning and now allocating 5 votes per SO and AC, and with an opt-in mechanism proposed.
Speak with you soon,
Jordan
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Jordan Carter* <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Date: 28 July 2015 at 21:20 Subject: Draft Agenda & Papers - WP1 Meeting #22 (28 July at 19h UTC) To: "wp1@icann.org <mailto:wp1@icann.org>" <wp1@icann.org <mailto:wp1@icann.org>>
Hi all
Here is the draft agenda and the documents for the WP1 call happening at 19-21h UTC on Tuesday 28 July 2015.
Also attached is the summary of issues.
*Please read these documents before the call - the working method will be an "Are There Any Final Comments To Make/Did Anything Decided at CCWG Affect This Draft" approach...*
[the reason for this is that our meeting finishes only 3 hrs before the absolute Freeze date for the
*1. Review of Agenda.*
*2. Any outstanding issues from CCWG meeting* of 28 July (12h-14h)
*3. Final Review of the Following Documents* (clean PDFs of "final drafts" attached - mark ups and Word versions to come on Wiki site at <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents> )
Fundamental Bylaws (3B)
Community Mechanism description (5A1) Community Mech - voting weights (5A2) -- NOTE *an update to come yet from Bernie and Alan re quorums etc)* * *Community Mech - ICANN community forum (5A3)
Comm Power - Budgets and Plans (5B1) Comm Power - Standard Bylaws (5B2) Comm Power - Removal of ICANN directors (5B3) Comm Power - Recall of ICANN Board (5B4)
Note: Steve's paper on incorporating AOC reviews into the ICANN bylaws (6-2) had agreement to incorporate the text on document disclosure etc on 27 July, so that paper is done and dusted. It's attached just so there is a complete collection here, but is not for discussion.
*4. Next Task: Finalising responses to Public Comments from PC1*
*5. Any other matters*
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter
/A better world through a better Internet /
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter
/A better world through a better Internet /
<3B-Fundamental-Bylaws-FinalDraft.pdf><5A-Community-Mechanism-Descr-FinalDraft.pdf><5A2-Community-Mechanism-Voting-PenultimateDraft.pdf><5A3-Comm-Mech-ICANNCommForum-FinalDraft.pdf><5B1-Comm-Power-BudgetAndPlans-FinalDraft.pdf><5B2-Comm-Power-StandardBylaws-FinalDraft.pdf><5B3-Comm-Power-RemovingDirectors-FinalDraft.pdf><5B4-Comm-Power-RecallingICANNBoard-FinalDraft.pdf><6-AOC-Reviews-in-Bylaws-FinalDraft.pdf><2015-07-28-WP1-summary-to-CCWG.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Quite of of context from the bylaws: "However, the ccNSO may also engage in other activities authorized by its members." :-)-O On 2015-07-28 13:45, Chris Disspain wrote:
Hi Avri,
SOs are only empowered to make recommendations on the subject matter of the SO, i.e. only on gTLDs, ccTLDs or Numbers.
Agree.
We assrt our right to comment on other stuff, but there is no bylaws indication of this empowerment.
Who is we?
It is only the ACs that are empowered to advise on any issue having to do with ICANN.
Agreed. So that means that the non-contracting party bits of GNSO are only empowered to comment on gTLD matters, doesn’t it?
Assuming that is correct then it seems to me that in respect to 'ICANN’s general well being’ we should not draw a distinction between ACs and SOs. SOs and ACs are empowered to comment on 'ICANN’s general well being’ with authority/weight and bits of the SOs and ACs are entitled to comment (as is anyone as an individual) but not with the same authority and weight as comments on SOs and ACs as a whole.
Does that make sense?
Cheers,
Chris [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Agreed el. But there is a difference between the ccNSO members authorising the ccNSO to engage in the governance of soccer and FIFA accepting the input of the ccNSO regarding the governance of soccer :-) Cheers, Chris
On 28 Jul 2015, at 23:14 , Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Quite of of context from the bylaws:
"However, the ccNSO may also engage in other activities authorized by its members."
:-)-O
On 2015-07-28 13:45, Chris Disspain wrote:
Hi Avri,
SOs are only empowered to make recommendations on the subject matter of the SO, i.e. only on gTLDs, ccTLDs or Numbers.
Agree.
We assrt our right to comment on other stuff, but there is no bylaws indication of this empowerment.
Who is we?
It is only the ACs that are empowered to advise on any issue having to do with ICANN.
Agreed. So that means that the non-contracting party bits of GNSO are only empowered to comment on gTLD matters, doesn’t it?
Assuming that is correct then it seems to me that in respect to 'ICANN’s general well being’ we should not draw a distinction between ACs and SOs. SOs and ACs are empowered to comment on 'ICANN’s general well being’ with authority/weight and bits of the SOs and ACs are entitled to comment (as is anyone as an individual) but not with the same authority and weight as comments on SOs and ACs as a whole.
Does that make sense?
Cheers,
Chris [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Chris, My impression is that that has never bothered ALAC :-)-O el On 2015-07-28 14:19, Chris Disspain wrote:
Agreed el. But there is a difference between the ccNSO members authorising the ccNSO to engage in the governance of soccer and FIFA accepting the input of the ccNSO regarding the governance of soccer :-)
Cheers,
Chris[...] Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
I don't recall the ALAC ever issuing advice (formal or otherwise) regarding the governance of soccer. I do seem to recall that some ALAC members did play in a soccer game, I think while in San Juan. Does that count? Alan At 28/07/2015 09:22 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
Chris,
My impression is that that has never bothered ALAC :-)-O
el
On 2015-07-28 14:19, Chris Disspain wrote:
Agreed el. But there is a difference between the ccNSO members authorising the ccNSO to engage in the governance of soccer and FIFA accepting the input of the ccNSO regarding the governance of soccer :-)
Cheers,
Chris[...] Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Who won? :-)-O el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Jul 28, 2015, at 23:40, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I don't recall the ALAC ever issuing advice (formal or otherwise) regarding the governance of soccer.
I do seem to recall that some ALAC members did play in a soccer game, I think while in San Juan. Does that count?
Alan
At 28/07/2015 09:22 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
Chris,
My impression is that that has never bothered ALAC :-)-O
el
On 2015-07-28 14:19, Chris Disspain wrote:
Agreed el. But there is a difference between the ccNSO members authorising the ccNSO to engage in the governance of soccer and FIFA accepting the input of the ccNSO regarding the governance of soccer :-)
Cheers,
Chris[...] Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Germany. Of course. Best regards, León
El 29/07/2015, a las 2:13, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Who won?
:-)-O
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Jul 28, 2015, at 23:40, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote:
I don't recall the ALAC ever issuing advice (formal or otherwise) regarding the governance of soccer.
I do seem to recall that some ALAC members did play in a soccer game, I think while in San Juan. Does that count?
Alan
At 28/07/2015 09:22 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
Chris,
My impression is that that has never bothered ALAC :-)-O
el
On 2015-07-28 14:19, Chris Disspain wrote:
Agreed el. But there is a difference between the ccNSO members authorising the ccNSO to engage in the governance of soccer and FIFA accepting the input of the ccNSO regarding the governance of soccer :-)
Cheers,
Chris[...] Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
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 <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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Oh, so ALAC played well for 90 minutes? :-)-O el On 2015-07-29 08:25 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Germany. Of course.
Best regards,
León
El 29/07/2015, a las 2:13, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Who won?
:-)-O
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Jul 28, 2015, at 23:40, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote:
I don't recall the ALAC ever issuing advice (formal or otherwise) regarding the governance of soccer.
I do seem to recall that some ALAC members did play in a soccer game, I think while in San Juan. Does that count?
Alan
At 28/07/2015 09:22 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
Chris,
My impression is that that has never bothered ALAC :-)-O
el
On 2015-07-28 14:19, Chris Disspain wrote:
Agreed el. But there is a difference between the ccNSO members authorising the ccNSO to engage in the governance of soccer and FIFA accepting the input of the ccNSO regarding the governance of soccer :-)
Cheers,
Chris[...] [...] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iQIVAwUBVbiD2pcFHaN5RT+rAQKIdw//T4kjYPL8WMwpJp40oHfeOndWkk3y6dUA UiSMX8xR4uSfSq7Ll5zjcm/qqrMdb39eHE00ELPfZPKFupkbMvTlEPf1UlLEFr+D gqavtEYcenjZZzxOqRso7wO3OBQb5gROcfIdJgCFhILOxy4Mbqwkavj+jO43YX3I b7ZJ5Sz1/fskx0ZWJZAAomYf60t9hQBzRnrH9J8h43Rw4VSJ55tYUC1s6uHjhxHQ 0lrwaI6HphgWvRmL/ndBpO3QRlzHJdOhgi+NY9g2/7SaPQKCr3ThaC+Xq0+q7Q9r mc9R1zBWNRi8a4/V5mNRqxrL6Rw0QLLjWh+vPz93lO+foLrAkABTaJ6Goda6vw+V RyOu/kLMZ5idGm9lNlhCVR8hIGf/vzaDTn7JqcPn1Q/ThOEGFR5XiY2K9xx1u4wd SE3EBt00+CEPG4kJmccnCYoqA3oLtbVi5+9WtmwR2EEQLHE9Qp6bXsf0WI5oKxK3 3K7DpcTERwra4LGG4xDfAUuauMTwg/SlrA6XIW8inmIyTlH/GED3QTykyokchxL8 SGaZd+xjNP0L9zE2pt/x92P+lcthAXDlVjrm8EJVmp8kZzqJDkJY9aeGRNsaSv+w Fw5GgTF6jpEzWXcQp9n/xxTQE+AH0ymjGL6kcy7tJKkTgBiTJAjg7vTGcv2v7yql w3A5z6kYHOY= =LzXX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jordan - we received an answer back from ICANN's auditors concerning the question whether a budget veto right will impact the audit process. Answer "The Company should make sure there is a process in place by the Board if the final budget is not approved prior to the beginning of the year for best practice purposes." Therefore I recommend the add the following sentence at section: 'Comm Power - Budgets and Plans (5B1)' "The Board will setup a process in case the final budget is not approved prior to the beginning of the year to allow best budgeting practices to continue. Approving the budget on time ensures that internal controls can work." Please let me know if need more information. Thanks, Erika On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Dear CCWG members
Please find attached a number of papers up for discussion on today's call in about three hours - these are final drafts, the marked ups and background versions are on the Wiki at the link below.
Also attached is a summary noting what the key most recent changes have been.
I particularly draw your attention to the paper which starts 5A2 on voting power, updated following the WP1 call this morning and now allocating 5 votes per SO and AC, and with an opt-in mechanism proposed.
Speak with you soon,
Jordan
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Date: 28 July 2015 at 21:20 Subject: Draft Agenda & Papers - WP1 Meeting #22 (28 July at 19h UTC) To: "wp1@icann.org" <wp1@icann.org>
Hi all
Here is the draft agenda and the documents for the WP1 call happening at 19-21h UTC on Tuesday 28 July 2015.
Also attached is the summary of issues.
*Please read these documents before the call - the working method will be an "Are There Any Final Comments To Make/Did Anything Decided at CCWG Affect This Draft" approach...*
[the reason for this is that our meeting finishes only 3 hrs before the absolute Freeze date for the
*1. Review of Agenda.*
*2. Any outstanding issues from CCWG meeting* of 28 July (12h-14h)
*3. Final Review of the Following Documents* (clean PDFs of "final drafts" attached - mark ups and Word versions to come on Wiki site at < https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents> )
Fundamental Bylaws (3B)
Community Mechanism description (5A1) Community Mech - voting weights (5A2) -- NOTE *an update to come yet from Bernie and Alan re quorums etc)* Community Mech - ICANN community forum (5A3)
Comm Power - Budgets and Plans (5B1) Comm Power - Standard Bylaws (5B2) Comm Power - Removal of ICANN directors (5B3) Comm Power - Recall of ICANN Board (5B4)
Note: Steve's paper on incorporating AOC reviews into the ICANN bylaws (6-2) had agreement to incorporate the text on document disclosure etc on 27 July, so that paper is done and dusted. It's attached just so there is a complete collection here, but is not for discussion.
*4. Next Task: Finalising responses to Public Comments from PC1*
*5. Any other matters*
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
*A better world through a better Internet *
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-495-2118 (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
I don't think we need the language kindly recommended by Erika. We are already proposing a "process" that will be "in place if the final budget is not approved prior to the beginning of the year", in paragraph 06: If the exercise of this power leads to no budget being in place at the
start of a new financial year, a caretaker budget struck at the same level as the previous year’s budget will apply, to allow for continued operation of ICANN or of the IANA functions while the budget disagreement is resolved.
Thus, the first sentence is moot. The last sentence seems not to be on-topic -- we have not brought up the issue of internal controls, and we have no idea whether a late approval of the budget will have any effect on internal controls. If we want, we can add a sentence after the above, stating: "This is consistent with the "best practice" that a process is in place in the event a final budget is not approved prior to the beginning of the fiscal year." I think this may comfort some readers, but it is not strictly necessary. Greg On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
Jordan - we received an answer back from ICANN's auditors concerning the question whether a budget veto right will impact the audit process. Answer "The Company should make sure there is a process in place by the Board if the final budget is not approved prior to the beginning of the year for best practice purposes." Therefore I recommend the add the following sentence at section: 'Comm Power - Budgets and Plans (5B1)' "The Board will setup a process in case the final budget is not approved prior to the beginning of the year to allow best budgeting practices to continue. Approving the budget on time ensures that internal controls can work."
Please let me know if need more information. Thanks, Erika
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Dear CCWG members
Please find attached a number of papers up for discussion on today's call in about three hours - these are final drafts, the marked ups and background versions are on the Wiki at the link below.
Also attached is a summary noting what the key most recent changes have been.
I particularly draw your attention to the paper which starts 5A2 on voting power, updated following the WP1 call this morning and now allocating 5 votes per SO and AC, and with an opt-in mechanism proposed.
Speak with you soon,
Jordan
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Date: 28 July 2015 at 21:20 Subject: Draft Agenda & Papers - WP1 Meeting #22 (28 July at 19h UTC) To: "wp1@icann.org" <wp1@icann.org>
Hi all
Here is the draft agenda and the documents for the WP1 call happening at 19-21h UTC on Tuesday 28 July 2015.
Also attached is the summary of issues.
*Please read these documents before the call - the working method will be an "Are There Any Final Comments To Make/Did Anything Decided at CCWG Affect This Draft" approach...*
[the reason for this is that our meeting finishes only 3 hrs before the absolute Freeze date for the
*1. Review of Agenda.*
*2. Any outstanding issues from CCWG meeting* of 28 July (12h-14h)
*3. Final Review of the Following Documents* (clean PDFs of "final drafts" attached - mark ups and Word versions to come on Wiki site at < https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents> )
Fundamental Bylaws (3B)
Community Mechanism description (5A1) Community Mech - voting weights (5A2) -- NOTE *an update to come yet from Bernie and Alan re quorums etc)* Community Mech - ICANN community forum (5A3)
Comm Power - Budgets and Plans (5B1) Comm Power - Standard Bylaws (5B2) Comm Power - Removal of ICANN directors (5B3) Comm Power - Recall of ICANN Board (5B4)
Note: Steve's paper on incorporating AOC reviews into the ICANN bylaws (6-2) had agreement to incorporate the text on document disclosure etc on 27 July, so that paper is done and dusted. It's attached just so there is a complete collection here, but is not for discussion.
*4. Next Task: Finalising responses to Public Comments from PC1*
*5. Any other matters*
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
*A better world through a better Internet *
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-495-2118 (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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Greg - it's only a recommendation but will help the board. Let me assure you as the chair of the audit committee that a late budget approval will have implications on internal controls. But, otherwise, I'm fine with your recommendation as well. Thanks for looking into it! Erika On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think we need the language kindly recommended by Erika. We are already proposing a "process" that will be "in place if the final budget is not approved prior to the beginning of the year", in paragraph 06:
If the exercise of this power leads to no budget being in place at the
start of a new financial year, a caretaker budget struck at the same level as the previous year’s budget will apply, to allow for continued operation of ICANN or of the IANA functions while the budget disagreement is resolved.
Thus, the first sentence is moot. The last sentence seems not to be on-topic -- we have not brought up the issue of internal controls, and we have no idea whether a late approval of the budget will have any effect on internal controls.
If we want, we can add a sentence after the above, stating: "This is consistent with the "best practice" that a process is in place in the event a final budget is not approved prior to the beginning of the fiscal year." I think this may comfort some readers, but it is not strictly necessary.
Greg
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
Jordan - we received an answer back from ICANN's auditors concerning the question whether a budget veto right will impact the audit process. Answer "The Company should make sure there is a process in place by the Board if the final budget is not approved prior to the beginning of the year for best practice purposes." Therefore I recommend the add the following sentence at section: 'Comm Power - Budgets and Plans (5B1)' "The Board will setup a process in case the final budget is not approved prior to the beginning of the year to allow best budgeting practices to continue. Approving the budget on time ensures that internal controls can work."
Please let me know if need more information. Thanks, Erika
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz
wrote:
Dear CCWG members
Please find attached a number of papers up for discussion on today's call in about three hours - these are final drafts, the marked ups and background versions are on the Wiki at the link below.
Also attached is a summary noting what the key most recent changes have been.
I particularly draw your attention to the paper which starts 5A2 on voting power, updated following the WP1 call this morning and now allocating 5 votes per SO and AC, and with an opt-in mechanism proposed.
Speak with you soon,
Jordan
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Date: 28 July 2015 at 21:20 Subject: Draft Agenda & Papers - WP1 Meeting #22 (28 July at 19h UTC) To: "wp1@icann.org" <wp1@icann.org>
Hi all
Here is the draft agenda and the documents for the WP1 call happening at 19-21h UTC on Tuesday 28 July 2015.
Also attached is the summary of issues.
*Please read these documents before the call - the working method will be an "Are There Any Final Comments To Make/Did Anything Decided at CCWG Affect This Draft" approach...*
[the reason for this is that our meeting finishes only 3 hrs before the absolute Freeze date for the
*1. Review of Agenda.*
*2. Any outstanding issues from CCWG meeting* of 28 July (12h-14h)
*3. Final Review of the Following Documents* (clean PDFs of "final drafts" attached - mark ups and Word versions to come on Wiki site at < https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents> )
Fundamental Bylaws (3B)
Community Mechanism description (5A1) Community Mech - voting weights (5A2) -- NOTE *an update to come yet from Bernie and Alan re quorums etc)* Community Mech - ICANN community forum (5A3)
Comm Power - Budgets and Plans (5B1) Comm Power - Standard Bylaws (5B2) Comm Power - Removal of ICANN directors (5B3) Comm Power - Recall of ICANN Board (5B4)
Note: Steve's paper on incorporating AOC reviews into the ICANN bylaws (6-2) had agreement to incorporate the text on document disclosure etc on 27 July, so that paper is done and dusted. It's attached just so there is a complete collection here, but is not for discussion.
*4. Next Task: Finalising responses to Public Comments from PC1*
*5. Any other matters*
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
*A better world through a better Internet *
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-495-2118 (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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (13)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Chris Disspain -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Dr Eberhard Lisse -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
-
Erika Mann -
Greg Shatan -
Jordan Carter -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Mark Carvell -
Robin Gross