Dear Giovanni, All,
Thank you!
>To allow more ccTLDs to engage in this process, I would like to suggest that the ccNSO session dedicated to this matter in Johannesburg includes an introduction where the post-transition rules and processes are explained in layman terms’ style. Furthermore, a high-level presentation that helps to understand the new scenario could be produced and used in all the ccTLD environments to generate more awareness and familiarity.
Thank you for stressing the importance of a meaningful discussion in Johannesburg. I will use the opportunity to invite everyone to participate in the session on Tuesday, 27 June at 14:15 ‘GRC&PDP’ when we will present the Approval Action Guideline. Attend the session – in person or remotely! Prepare your questions and suggestions!
We will take into account Giovanni’s suggestion and will provide a comprehensive overview and explain the process in simple terms.
Kind regards,
]{atrina
From: ccnso-members-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccnso-members-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki
Sent: 24 May 2017 13:46
To: 'Jordan Carter' <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
Cc: 'ccTLD Community List' <ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org>; ccnso-council@icann.org; 'ccNSO Members' <ccnso-members@icann.org>; cctldworld@icann.org
Subject: Re: [ccnso-members] GRC and ccNSO Council: public comments on Guideline on Approval Actions
Dear Jordan, All,
Thank you!
>Interesting discussion and thank you to Katrina and the Council for developing some options and seeking input like this.
I must note that the proposals were developed by the Guidelines Review Committee (GRC) and presented to the ccNSO Council who in turn seeks input from the community :) I would like to use the opportunity to thank the members of the GRC working group for their hard work and committment.
>On the subject of reviewing our existing process: I think it would be problematic to weaken our existing processes on the issues they are designed to cover, so a review of the existing process that sped it up or weakened it to make this EC decision making work seems like the wrong thing to do. (If the problem of slow decisions or thresholds etc are actually problems in all our decision-making, then it would be worth having a look.)
According to plan, which we had to alter due to the vast amount of guidelines we needed in place because of the new Bylaws, the last job of the GRC will be to review the Rules of the ccNSO and propose a new version. We will definitely have a lot of discussions on how to improve the mechanism! Can start in Johannesburg :)
Kind regards,
]{atrina
On 20 May 2017 at 03:02, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As you know, the ccNSO is a Decisional Participant and as such a part of the Empowered Community. As Decisional Participant we as ccNSO have the power to support or object to a so called Approval Actions or, if so determined, abstain from the matter. Further, to be considered approved by the Empowered Community an Approval Action needs to be supported by at least three (3) Decisional Participants, and not objected to by more than one.
Recently we already informed you that the ICANN Board proposed changes to the Fundamental Bylaws. This has triggered the Approval Action process and as part of the process there will be a Community Forum during the Johannesburg meeting. During this Community Forum everybody can ask their questions. In addition, directly after the Community Forum, at the end of ICANN59, a 21-day period will start during which the ccNSO Council has to decide whether to support, object or abstain from the Approval Action.
To be ready as ccNSO to take such a decision, we as community need to have a guideline in place, at least need to know how we as ccNSO (members and Council) will structure our decision-making process. Therefore, the ccNSO Council intends to approve a ccNSO Approval Action guideline in Johannesburg at the latest.
The Guidelines Review Committee (GRC) has developed a draft guideline (Draft Guideline Approval Actions v6.docx). The core of the guideline is about the ccNSO decision making process. In developing this guideline the GRC has identified a major issue: the way we normally take major decisions can not be aligned with the timelines of the ICANN Bylaws Approval Action procedure. According to the Rules of the ccNSO from 2004, 10% of ccNSO members (currently 17 ccNSO members) may ask for a ccNSO members vote to ratify a ccNSO Council decision within 7 days after the ccNSO Council decision has been published, and only after 7 days after members had the opportunity to call for a ratification a ccNSO Council decision becomes effective. It is quite clear that we cannot squeeze our process, including the members vote, in the 21-day period we have for an Approval Action decision according to the Bylaws.
If the ccNSO does not meet this 21-day deadline it is deemed to have abstained from the matter, so neither support, nor object.
Moving forward, the GRC proposes two alternative solutions and the ccNSO Council would like to know your opinion.
Alternative 1: Rules of the ccNSO do NOT apply to this decision!
The process:
- after Community Forum the ccNSO Council has to seek opinion from the ccTLD community (mandatory)
- the ccNSO Council takes a decision (within 21 days, including the consultation period with the community)
- the ccNSO Council informs the Empowered Community Administration about the decision.
Pros:
- longer consultation period which means that the ccNSO Council may be better informed.
- 10% of ccNSO members cannot hold the entire ccNSO from expressing its position, lower possibility that the ccNSO abstains.
Cons
- The internal accountability rules of the ccNSO are sacrificed for the sake of the overall accountability rules, no mechanism to ratify the ccNSO Council decision.
Alternative 2: Rules of the ccNSO DO apply
The process:
- during or directly after the Community Forum period the ccNSO Council seeks the opinion from the ccTLD community
- the ccNSO Council takes a decision (within 14 days after closure of the Community Forum Period, including consultation of the community)
- the ccNSO Council decision is only effective 7 days after it has been taken. If the decision is not challenged, the ccNSO Council informs the Empowered Community Administration about the decision.
Pros:
- there is a mechanism to block ccNSO Council decision
Cons
- shorter consultation period
- if 10% of ccNSO members (17 ccNSO members) call for a ratification, the ccNSO abstains from the matter as it will not be able to take an effective decision within the deadline of 21 days.
To summarize, in both cases the ccNSO Council shall consider:
- the feed-back, views and input received from the ccNSO community;
- the results of the Community Forum;
- the importance of the matter for the ccTLD community;
- other factors deemed relevant by the ccNSO Council.
Finally, in the past we have been able to live up to our standard of decision-making and deliver decisions in time.
What is your opinion? Which alternative do you support?
To make it easier for you to understand the Approval Actions process we have prepared the following documents (see attachment):
- A high level graphical overview of the process – AA process.pdf
- A full timeline (overview) – Overview Approval Action Process.pdf (GANTT chart)
- A full timeline (detailed) – Detailed chart Overview Approval Action Process.pdf (GANTT chart)
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask.
We are a looking forward to your feed-back and input by 8 June. Please also note that we have scheduled a session to discuss this guideline in more details in Juhannesburg on Tuesday, 27 June at 14:15.
Kind Regards,
]{atrina
_______________________________________________
Ccnso-members mailing list
Ccnso-members@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-members
--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive
InternetNZ
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) | Skype: jordancarter
jordan@InternetNZ.net.nz | www.InternetNZ.nz
A better world through a better Internet
Disclaimer:
This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses.
Other languages: