Bylaws requirements for CWG
Hi, Was thinking about bylaws for DT-N Review and DT-X Separation mechanism and realized that we might also need one to establish the CSC. What other bylaws might the CWG need. We should probably make a list. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Do we need them for the IANA Review Team (formally the Periodic Review Team)? Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 7:56 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG Hi, Was thinking about bylaws for DT-N Review and DT-X Separation mechanism and realized that we might also need one to establish the CSC. What other bylaws might the CWG need. We should probably make a list. avri ________________________________ [Avast logo]<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/>
Depending on the model transition adopted we would potentially need an amendment to the bylaw to note when/how the Periodic Reviews would be automatically triggered. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 9:18 AM To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG Do we need them for the IANA Review Team (formally the Periodic Review Team)? Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 7:56 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG Hi, Was thinking about bylaws for DT-N Review and DT-X Separation mechanism and realized that we might also need one to establish the CSC. What other bylaws might the CWG need. We should probably make a list. avri ________________________________ [Avast logo]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMGaQ&...> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMGaQ&...>
Stephanie and others: Seems to me a “periodic review” should occur according to a fixed time period. That is, it should be “triggered” by the calendar, not by some event or problem. I cannot overstate the superior accountability features of fixed, regular periodicity. The incumbent operator (whether it is ICANN or anyone else) is ALWAYS going to resist a review and possible new RFP unless it is hardwired into the system. If the review is a routine, institutionalized event then all the politics and drama about whether we have the review goes away. You have it because it is time to have it. If you make it an exceptional event, non-periodic, then it is more easily abused (someone gets angry at someone at threatens to mount a review, more divisive (some people will think we should have one, others won’t), more drama (incumbent resists) and thus more time consuming and destabilizing. People will fight about whether to have the review, instead of just getting on with the review. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Duchesneau, Stephanie Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 9:39 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG Depending on the model transition adopted we would potentially need an amendment to the bylaw to note when/how the Periodic Reviews would be automatically triggered. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 9:18 AM To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG Do we need them for the IANA Review Team (formally the Periodic Review Team)? Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 7:56 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG Hi, Was thinking about bylaws for DT-N Review and DT-X Separation mechanism and realized that we might also need one to establish the CSC. What other bylaws might the CWG need. We should probably make a list. avri ________________________________ [Image removed by sender. Avast logo]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMGaQ&...> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMGaQ&...>
Hi Milton, I agree that the periodic reviews should be calendar-triggered, and that is reflected in the DT-N documentation. What I was referring to was a provision stating when they would be triggered and the processes under which they would be carried out. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 11:16 AM To: Duchesneau, Stephanie; 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'avri@acm.org'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG Stephanie and others: Seems to me a “periodic review” should occur according to a fixed time period. That is, it should be “triggered” by the calendar, not by some event or problem. I cannot overstate the superior accountability features of fixed, regular periodicity. The incumbent operator (whether it is ICANN or anyone else) is ALWAYS going to resist a review and possible new RFP unless it is hardwired into the system. If the review is a routine, institutionalized event then all the politics and drama about whether we have the review goes away. You have it because it is time to have it. If you make it an exceptional event, non-periodic, then it is more easily abused (someone gets angry at someone at threatens to mount a review, more divisive (some people will think we should have one, others won’t), more drama (incumbent resists) and thus more time consuming and destabilizing. People will fight about whether to have the review, instead of just getting on with the review. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Duchesneau, Stephanie Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 9:39 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG Depending on the model transition adopted we would potentially need an amendment to the bylaw to note when/how the Periodic Reviews would be automatically triggered. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 9:18 AM To: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG Do we need them for the IANA Review Team (formally the Periodic Review Team)? Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 7:56 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG Hi, Was thinking about bylaws for DT-N Review and DT-X Separation mechanism and realized that we might also need one to establish the CSC. What other bylaws might the CWG need. We should probably make a list. avri ________________________________ [Image removed by sender. Avast logo]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMGaQ&...> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMGaQ&...>
Hi, I had been thinking that perhaps the triggers could be described in the IRT description that was created for the inclusion among AOC-like reviews. But now, I wonder whether those triggers need to be defined in a separate bylaw. avri On 17-Apr-15 13:20, Duchesneau, Stephanie wrote:
Hi Milton,
I agree that the periodic reviews should be calendar-triggered, and that is reflected in the DT-N documentation. What I was referring to was a provision stating when they would be triggered and the processes under which they would be carried out.
Stephanie
*Stephanie Duchesneau** **Neustar, Inc. / *Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4^th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 *Office:***+1.202.533.2623 *Mobile: *+1.703.731.2040 *Fax: *+1.202.533.2623*/*www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
*From:*Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2015 11:16 AM *To:* Duchesneau, Stephanie; 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'avri@acm.org'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG
Stephanie and others:
Seems to me a “periodic review” should occur according to a fixed time period.
That is, it should be “triggered” by the calendar, not by some event or problem.
I cannot overstate the superior accountability features of fixed, regular periodicity. The incumbent operator (whether it is ICANN or anyone else) is ALWAYS going to resist a review and possible new RFP unless it is hardwired into the system. If the review is a routine, institutionalized event then all the politics and drama about whether we have the review goes away. You have it because it is time to have it. If you make it an exceptional event, non-periodic, then it is more easily abused (someone gets angry at someone at threatens to mount a review, more divisive (some people will think we should have one, others won’t), more drama (incumbent resists) and thus more time consuming and destabilizing. People will fight about whether to have the review, instead of just getting on with the review.
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Duchesneau, Stephanie *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2015 9:39 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG
Depending on the model transition adopted we would potentially need an amendment to the bylaw to note when/how the Periodic Reviews would be automatically triggered.
Stephanie
*Stephanie Duchesneau** **Neustar, Inc. / *Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4^th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 *Office:***+1.202.533.2623 *Mobile: *+1.703.731.2040 *Fax: *+1.202.533.2623*/*www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2015 9:18 AM *To:* avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG
Do we need them for the IANA Review Team (formally the Periodic Review Team)?
Chuck
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2015 7:56 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG
Hi,
Was thinking about bylaws for DT-N Review and DT-X Separation mechanism and realized that we might also need one to establish the CSC.
What other bylaws might the CWG need. We should probably make a list.
avri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image removed by sender. Avast logo <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMGaQ&...>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMGaQ&...>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Milton, It is not at clear to me why you are arguing for periodic reviews when the CWG has already agreed that those should be done. Stephanie was only responding to a question from Avri regarding what areas might need Bylaws changes; unless I am missing something, she was not talking about whether reviews should be periodic. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 11:16 AM To: 'Duchesneau, Stephanie'; Gomes, Chuck; 'avri@acm.org'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG Stephanie and others: Seems to me a “periodic review” should occur according to a fixed time period. That is, it should be “triggered” by the calendar, not by some event or problem. I cannot overstate the superior accountability features of fixed, regular periodicity. The incumbent operator (whether it is ICANN or anyone else) is ALWAYS going to resist a review and possible new RFP unless it is hardwired into the system. If the review is a routine, institutionalized event then all the politics and drama about whether we have the review goes away. You have it because it is time to have it. If you make it an exceptional event, non-periodic, then it is more easily abused (someone gets angry at someone at threatens to mount a review, more divisive (some people will think we should have one, others won’t), more drama (incumbent resists) and thus more time consuming and destabilizing. People will fight about whether to have the review, instead of just getting on with the review. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Duchesneau, Stephanie Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 9:39 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG Depending on the model transition adopted we would potentially need an amendment to the bylaw to note when/how the Periodic Reviews would be automatically triggered. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 9:18 AM To: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG Do we need them for the IANA Review Team (formally the Periodic Review Team)? Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 7:56 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG Hi, Was thinking about bylaws for DT-N Review and DT-X Separation mechanism and realized that we might also need one to establish the CSC. What other bylaws might the CWG need. We should probably make a list. avri ________________________________ [Image removed by sender. Avast logo]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMGaQ&...> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMGaQ&...>
OK, great, sorry if I misunderstood. When Stephanie asked “when/how the Periodic Reviews would be automatically triggered” it sounded to me like we were not set on periodic or any other standard for triggering the reviews. And it still does. ;-) IF she had asked what areas might need bylaw changes to ensure that periodic reviews took place, I would have not made that mistake. --MM From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Milton, It is not at clear to me why you are arguing for periodic reviews when the CWG has already agreed that those should be done. Stephanie was only responding to a question from Avri regarding what areas might need Bylaws changes; unless I am missing something, she was not talking about whether reviews should be periodic. Chuck
Hi, Milton, we decided that it would be periodic, but also that in extreme circumstance it could be triggered out of band. avri On 17-Apr-15 11:16, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Stephanie and others:
Seems to me a “periodic review” should occur according to a fixed time period.
That is, it should be “triggered” by the calendar, not by some event or problem.
I cannot overstate the superior accountability features of fixed, regular periodicity. The incumbent operator (whether it is ICANN or anyone else) is ALWAYS going to resist a review and possible new RFP unless it is hardwired into the system. If the review is a routine, institutionalized event then all the politics and drama about whether we have the review goes away. You have it because it is time to have it. If you make it an exceptional event, non-periodic, then it is more easily abused (someone gets angry at someone at threatens to mount a review, more divisive (some people will think we should have one, others won’t), more drama (incumbent resists) and thus more time consuming and destabilizing. People will fight about whether to have the review, instead of just getting on with the review.
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Duchesneau, Stephanie *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2015 9:39 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG
Depending on the model transition adopted we would potentially need an amendment to the bylaw to note when/how the Periodic Reviews would be automatically triggered.
Stephanie
*Stephanie Duchesneau** **Neustar, Inc. / *Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4^th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 *Office:***+1.202.533.2623 *Mobile: *+1.703.731.2040 *Fax: *+1.202.533.2623*/*www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2015 9:18 AM *To:* avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG
Do we need them for the IANA Review Team (formally the Periodic Review Team)?
Chuck
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2015 7:56 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG
Hi,
Was thinking about bylaws for DT-N Review and DT-X Separation mechanism and realized that we might also need one to establish the CSC.
What other bylaws might the CWG need. We should probably make a list.
avri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image removed by sender. Avast logo <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMGaQ&...>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMGaQ&...>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
I think this is an important (and probably overdue) thread. I am cc'ing the Client Committee list so that Sidley can be aware of it. We may not need to draft those bylaw changes in time for the Report but we should certainly try to identify and collect those needed for our plan. Greg On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Duchesneau, Stephanie < Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us> wrote:
Depending on the model transition adopted we would potentially need an amendment to the bylaw to note when/how the Periodic Reviews would be automatically triggered.
Stephanie
*Stephanie Duchesneau* *Neustar, Inc. / *Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 *Office:* +1.202.533.2623 *Mobile: *+1.703.731.2040 *Fax: * +1.202.533.2623 */* www.neustar.biz ------------------------------
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2015 9:18 AM *To:* avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG
Do we need them for the IANA Review Team (formally the Periodic Review Team)?
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2015 7:56 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG
Hi,
Was thinking about bylaws for DT-N Review and DT-X Separation mechanism and realized that we might also need one to establish the CSC.
What other bylaws might the CWG need. We should probably make a list.
avri ------------------------------
[image: Avast logo] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMGaQ&...>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMGaQ&...>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi, I believe we will need some bylaws changes, - we discussed that the IANA Review Team would be one of the AOC-like review that CCWG is currently proposing be put in the bylaws. CCWG has a place holder for that one in their work. - the first golden bylaw, now fundamental bylaw, I ever heard discussed was the original Nuclear-RFP bylaw. the Separation mechansim is an escalation mechanism version of that original nuclear option, and I believe one that would need to be defined by a bylaw. - all of the ongoing groups, e.g. SOAC, with a degree of powers are all defined in the bylaws. It seemed to me that for the CSC to be real, it would need to be defined in a bylaw. I admit, no else has indicated that, just seems that way to me. I can't think of any others, yet until today, it had not occurred to me that we might need one for the CSC. So I figure there might be others and it is the sort of thing we should understand. avri On 17-Apr-15 09:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Do we need them for the IANA Review Team (formally the Periodic Review Team)?
Chuck
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2015 7:56 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG
Hi,
Was thinking about bylaws for DT-N Review and DT-X Separation mechanism and realized that we might also need one to establish the CSC.
What other bylaws might the CWG need. We should probably make a list.
avri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
participants (5)
-
Avri Doria -
Duchesneau, Stephanie -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
Milton L Mueller