Hi,  I do not think it is inconsistent. If you notice I overlapped the community and board process in scwg and was thinking very much of a process similar to the one we are evolving for ccwg. Each is independent yet they overlap and need to work together. The desert of the process to the right of the overlapping diamonds is what happens if they can't agree. Though perhaps I did not understand.  avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> </div><div>Date:11/05/2015 2:00 PM (GMT+09:00) </div><div>To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> </div><div>Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> </div><div>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Separability process and role of community in decisions (was Re: Separability: picture of the relation of CWG's IFR & SCWG with CCWG process) </div><div> </div>Dear Jordan and Avri , Dear All, For the first part of the Question , who draft separation Bylaws? My suggestion is CWG start and sends its finding to CCWG For the second part of the question, we need to formally seek the views of the Board ( not individual Board but the entire Board) on the Process . My suggestion would be to start with a co-decision making., If wWe could handle the case in a murually acceptable manner with the Board after being informed of their views in a formal manner through a Note from Co-Chair . But if there is divergence, then we prefer that the last words to be given by CCWG ,i.e.,the Board start to decide and then CCWG consider the matter and make final decision ,as appropriate Regards Kavouss 2015-11-05 5:24 GMT+01:00 Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>: hi all, hi Avri Thanks for these diagrams, which I've had another look at today. I was drawn back to them because one of the "not closed" things in my mind is the role of the community as a decision-maker at the final approval stage of a transition of the Names IANA Functions - if that is recommended by a Special IFR. My reading of the CWG-Names final proposal is that the group was after a co-decision process - that both the ICANN Board, and the community organised through some mechanism, would have to approve separation before it could be done. This is similar to the approach we have used for changes to Fundamental Bylaws. I think with the Community Mechanism we have the vehicle to make the Community part of the co-decision. And through independent review of Board decisions or non-decisions, we have some tools as a community to deal with a Board part of the co-decision with which we don't agree. If people agree with this co-decision approach, my remaining question is which group is drafting the relevant bylaws - us, or the CWG. If people think actually there is meant to be a separate Community decision after the Board decision, they should say so now... Also, I wonder if the same sort of co-decision process is required for the formation of a Special IFR. My thought is not, consistent with Avri's slides. But keen on others' thoughts. cheers Jordan On 28 October 2015 at 07:38, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote: Hi, I have attempted to draw up a discussion set of slides on the connection between the CWG process for Separability and the CCWG accountability and enforcement measures. The drive doc is open for comments: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kmDLv0yF41lb9OBlCKnl6o3TMps6AlTF8Njs... I have also attached a PDF. avri _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community