Nigel, all, Please see included response on point raised on behalf of the co-chairs of the CCWG-Accountability to the CCWG email list, Kind regards, Bart On 05/05/15 22:41, "Adam Peake" wrote:
Note on behalf of Thomas, Leon and Mathieu about the CCWG proposal 30-day public comment period.
Hi everyone,
We have seen comments about the 30-day public comment period. You will remember this has been our intention since we discussed planning in Istanbul, and we concluded this discussion on the CCWG call of 30 April. The outcome was to propose the first public comment should be for 30 days, which would allow time for us to prepare a response for the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. It is particularly important that we are able to respond to the dependencies identified by the CWG-Stewardship.
Recognizing that the shorter public comment is not ideal for a subject of such importance to the community, we also took into account the fact that we will to hold a second public comment period some weeks after ICANN53 when we will seek input on any outstanding issues and provide details and explanation prompted by discussions with the community from the first public comment and during ICANN53.
The public comment announcement includes the remark "Because this (first) Public Comment period is less than the required 40-day minimum, it has been approved by two ICANN Global Leaders." The term Global Leaders is a reference to senior members of the ICANN staff and the condition was created to ensure that a check existed so that a single ICANN department would not depart from the standard default time period without broader senior staff input. The public comment guidelines and procedures are available on the public wiki https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48344695
Warm regards,
Thomas, Leon and Mathieu CCWG co-chairs
On 05/05/15 09:27, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) - Input Needed on its Proposed Accountability Enhancements (Work Stream 1) Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 08:26:07 +0100 From: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> To: cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org
Dear all
I realise that as a simple member of the council I'm not that up on the internal and constitutional niceties of the different and confusingly named alphabet-soup working groups busily campaigning to persuade the NTIA emperor to relinquish his not-that-old clothes, but I do really need some help with a couple of questions. Perhaps ccTLDcommunity members can help me here, please?
1. Is the role of "ICANN Global Leader" defined in the Charter of this particular WG, please? Or alternatively, in the ICANN by-laws?
2. What does it actually mean in terms of powers held by a Global Leader over, for example, members of the ccNSO?
3. Where, in the Charter, or the by-laws, does it specify that a "Global leader", whether acting alone or in concert with another "global leader" can abbreviate the required minimum consultation?
Surely, if a minumum is required, well, it's required, isn't it?
I look forward to being enlightened.
Nigel
.. a second Public Comment period is planned for July, and will be a full 40-day period. Because this (first) Public Comment period is less than the required 40-day minimum, it has been approved by two ICANN Global Leaders.