Updated draft of responses in PTI Bylaws-AoI table
Dear all, Per the discussion on today’s IOTF call, here attached is a redline version of the edits discussed on the call and a clean version to present to the CWG-Stewardship on Thursday. Thank you for your patience in the live editing process! --Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Monday, June 13, 2016 at 4:47 PM To: <iotf@icann.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Reminder: Please review the responses in PTI Bylaws table Dear all, In absence of the IOTF call today, I would just like to remind you to take some time to review the Google doc table of CWG responses on the PTI Bylaws. There are some notes and live edits made during the last IOTF call, and some comments from Chuck and Avri. The link to the document is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rmsp569qRxkWtNSNrJsZzENxFKLwbXVcTDWSGZJE.... I think (but will let the Chairs confirm) that the plan is still to have CWG-Stewardship sign-off in time (or during) the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday 16 June. Following group sign-off, the Client Committee would then be able to share the responses with Sidley for incorporation into the PTI Bylaws. Thank you, Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 6:00 PM To: <iotf@icann.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Process for IANA Bylaws - CWG Questions & Issues from Sidley Dear all, Per the email below, steps 1 & 2 have been completed: the CWG-Stewardship Chairs have provided initial responses, and the staff have matched these responses to the transcript of the CWG-Stewardship meeting from last week. The initial responses are available in a Google doc for the IOTF’s comments at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rmsp569qRxkWtNSNrJsZzENxFKLwbXVcTDWSGZJE.... Please note that the CWG-Stewardship list is copied for information. Anyone on either of these lists should feel free to review and comment on the initial responses, but the responsibility lies primarily with the IOTF at this stage. I will let the Chairs clarify the timeline for review, but my understanding is that we would like to have CWG-Stewardship sign-off in time (or during) the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday 16 June. Following group sign-off, the Client Committee would then be able to share the responses with Sidley for incorporation into the PTI Bylaws. Thank you, Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE. From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: Monday, June 6, 2016 at 4:04 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Process for IANA Bylaws - CWG Questions & Issues from Sidley All, The substance and process for dealing with CWG Bylaws was discussed this on last week’s CWG call and then followed up by Lise & myself. Based on the discussions within the CWG, we propose the following course of action in order to get through the work as efficiently as possible. 1. Chairs will make a first attempt at answering / providing relevant input on the Sidley questions 2. Staff will review chairs’ input for consistency with the CWG meeting discussions 3. Answers / input to be shared with IOTF group for further review / development 4. Answers / input to be shared with CWG for further review / development 5. Answers / input to be shared via Client Committee with Sidley for incorporation into IANA Bylaws Thank-you Lise & Jonathan
Note that I have a doctor’s appointment in the early part of this meeting. It is one that I have rescheduled multiple times over the last six months and each time have had to move it way out so I am not going to do that this time. I will do my best to participate in the call via cell phone as much as possible but there will be limitations. Chuck From: iotf-bounces@icann.org [mailto:iotf-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 5:16 PM To: iotf@icann.org Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [IOTF] Updated draft of responses in PTI Bylaws-AoI table Dear all, Per the discussion on today’s IOTF call, here attached is a redline version of the edits discussed on the call and a clean version to present to the CWG-Stewardship on Thursday. Thank you for your patience in the live editing process! --Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability>. STAY UPDATED<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#status>. FOLLOW<https://twitter.com/icann>. ENGAGE<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#involved>. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Monday, June 13, 2016 at 4:47 PM To: <iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Reminder: Please review the responses in PTI Bylaws table Dear all, In absence of the IOTF call today, I would just like to remind you to take some time to review the Google doc table of CWG responses on the PTI Bylaws. There are some notes and live edits made during the last IOTF call, and some comments from Chuck and Avri. The link to the document is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rmsp569qRxkWtNSNrJsZzENxFKLwbXVcTDWSGZJE.... I think (but will let the Chairs confirm) that the plan is still to have CWG-Stewardship sign-off in time (or during) the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday 16 June. Following group sign-off, the Client Committee would then be able to share the responses with Sidley for incorporation into the PTI Bylaws. Thank you, Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability>. STAY UPDATED<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#status>. FOLLOW<https://twitter.com/icann>. ENGAGE<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#involved>. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 6:00 PM To: <iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Process for IANA Bylaws - CWG Questions & Issues from Sidley Dear all, Per the email below, steps 1 & 2 have been completed: the CWG-Stewardship Chairs have provided initial responses, and the staff have matched these responses to the transcript of the CWG-Stewardship meeting from last week. The initial responses are available in a Google doc for the IOTF’s comments at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rmsp569qRxkWtNSNrJsZzENxFKLwbXVcTDWSGZJE.... Please note that the CWG-Stewardship list is copied for information. Anyone on either of these lists should feel free to review and comment on the initial responses, but the responsibility lies primarily with the IOTF at this stage. I will let the Chairs clarify the timeline for review, but my understanding is that we would like to have CWG-Stewardship sign-off in time (or during) the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday 16 June. Following group sign-off, the Client Committee would then be able to share the responses with Sidley for incorporation into the PTI Bylaws. Thank you, Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability>. STAY UPDATED<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#status>. FOLLOW<https://twitter.com/icann>. ENGAGE<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#involved>. From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Date: Monday, June 6, 2016 at 4:04 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Process for IANA Bylaws - CWG Questions & Issues from Sidley All, The substance and process for dealing with CWG Bylaws was discussed this on last week’s CWG call and then followed up by Lise & myself. Based on the discussions within the CWG, we propose the following course of action in order to get through the work as efficiently as possible. 1. Chairs will make a first attempt at answering / providing relevant input on the Sidley questions 2. Staff will review chairs’ input for consistency with the CWG meeting discussions 3. Answers / input to be shared with IOTF group for further review / development 4. Answers / input to be shared with CWG for further review / development 5. Answers / input to be shared via Client Committee with Sidley for incorporation into IANA Bylaws Thank-you Lise & Jonathan
The edits look good to me. Was the second option in Section 7.6.1 supposed to be deleted? “Board may approve delegation of responsibilities or powers of President. Member approval NOT required for the prescription of additional duties by the board to the President.[1] [2] Member approval required for the prescription of additional powers by the board to the President.” Chuck From: iotf-bounces@icann.org [mailto:iotf-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 5:16 PM To: iotf@icann.org Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [IOTF] Updated draft of responses in PTI Bylaws-AoI table Dear all, Per the discussion on today’s IOTF call, here attached is a redline version of the edits discussed on the call and a clean version to present to the CWG-Stewardship on Thursday. Thank you for your patience in the live editing process! --Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability>. STAY UPDATED<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#status>. FOLLOW<https://twitter.com/icann>. ENGAGE<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#involved>. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Monday, June 13, 2016 at 4:47 PM To: <iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Reminder: Please review the responses in PTI Bylaws table Dear all, In absence of the IOTF call today, I would just like to remind you to take some time to review the Google doc table of CWG responses on the PTI Bylaws. There are some notes and live edits made during the last IOTF call, and some comments from Chuck and Avri. The link to the document is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rmsp569qRxkWtNSNrJsZzENxFKLwbXVcTDWSGZJE.... I think (but will let the Chairs confirm) that the plan is still to have CWG-Stewardship sign-off in time (or during) the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday 16 June. Following group sign-off, the Client Committee would then be able to share the responses with Sidley for incorporation into the PTI Bylaws. Thank you, Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability>. STAY UPDATED<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#status>. FOLLOW<https://twitter.com/icann>. ENGAGE<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#involved>. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 6:00 PM To: <iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Process for IANA Bylaws - CWG Questions & Issues from Sidley Dear all, Per the email below, steps 1 & 2 have been completed: the CWG-Stewardship Chairs have provided initial responses, and the staff have matched these responses to the transcript of the CWG-Stewardship meeting from last week. The initial responses are available in a Google doc for the IOTF’s comments at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rmsp569qRxkWtNSNrJsZzENxFKLwbXVcTDWSGZJE.... Please note that the CWG-Stewardship list is copied for information. Anyone on either of these lists should feel free to review and comment on the initial responses, but the responsibility lies primarily with the IOTF at this stage. I will let the Chairs clarify the timeline for review, but my understanding is that we would like to have CWG-Stewardship sign-off in time (or during) the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday 16 June. Following group sign-off, the Client Committee would then be able to share the responses with Sidley for incorporation into the PTI Bylaws. Thank you, Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability>. STAY UPDATED<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#status>. FOLLOW<https://twitter.com/icann>. ENGAGE<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#involved>. From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Date: Monday, June 6, 2016 at 4:04 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Process for IANA Bylaws - CWG Questions & Issues from Sidley All, The substance and process for dealing with CWG Bylaws was discussed this on last week’s CWG call and then followed up by Lise & myself. Based on the discussions within the CWG, we propose the following course of action in order to get through the work as efficiently as possible. 1. Chairs will make a first attempt at answering / providing relevant input on the Sidley questions 2. Staff will review chairs’ input for consistency with the CWG meeting discussions 3. Answers / input to be shared with IOTF group for further review / development 4. Answers / input to be shared with CWG for further review / development 5. Answers / input to be shared via Client Committee with Sidley for incorporation into IANA Bylaws Thank-you Lise & Jonathan ________________________________ I lean toward this approach. It seems to me that the PTI Board should have this authority on its own; also, it would cause delays if they had to wait to get ICANN approval, causing unnecessary delays. for so long as such powers were strictly limited according to the PTI mission/role etc.
Good catch Chuck. Per your comment and Matthew’s agreement, I was supposed to delete the sentence beginning with “Member approval NOT required….”. I’ll make the edit in the Google doc and await any further comments before circulating a new version in time for the CWG call. Thank you, Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE. From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 6:35 PM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>, "iotf@icann.org" <iotf@icann.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: Updated draft of responses in PTI Bylaws-AoI table The edits look good to me. Was the second option in Section 7.6.1 supposed to be deleted? “Board may approve delegation of responsibilities or powers of President. Member approval NOT required for the prescription of additional duties by the board to the President.[1] [2] Member approval required for the prescription of additional powers by the board to the President.” Chuck From: iotf-bounces@icann.org [mailto:iotf-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 5:16 PM To: iotf@icann.org Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [IOTF] Updated draft of responses in PTI Bylaws-AoI table Dear all, Per the discussion on today’s IOTF call, here attached is a redline version of the edits discussed on the call and a clean version to present to the CWG-Stewardship on Thursday. Thank you for your patience in the live editing process! --Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Monday, June 13, 2016 at 4:47 PM To: <iotf@icann.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Reminder: Please review the responses in PTI Bylaws table Dear all, In absence of the IOTF call today, I would just like to remind you to take some time to review the Google doc table of CWG responses on the PTI Bylaws. There are some notes and live edits made during the last IOTF call, and some comments from Chuck and Avri. The link to the document is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rmsp569qRxkWtNSNrJsZzENxFKLwbXVcTDWSGZJE.... I think (but will let the Chairs confirm) that the plan is still to have CWG-Stewardship sign-off in time (or during) the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday 16 June. Following group sign-off, the Client Committee would then be able to share the responses with Sidley for incorporation into the PTI Bylaws. Thank you, Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 6:00 PM To: <iotf@icann.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Process for IANA Bylaws - CWG Questions & Issues from Sidley Dear all, Per the email below, steps 1 & 2 have been completed: the CWG-Stewardship Chairs have provided initial responses, and the staff have matched these responses to the transcript of the CWG-Stewardship meeting from last week. The initial responses are available in a Google doc for the IOTF’s comments at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rmsp569qRxkWtNSNrJsZzENxFKLwbXVcTDWSGZJE.... Please note that the CWG-Stewardship list is copied for information. Anyone on either of these lists should feel free to review and comment on the initial responses, but the responsibility lies primarily with the IOTF at this stage. I will let the Chairs clarify the timeline for review, but my understanding is that we would like to have CWG-Stewardship sign-off in time (or during) the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday 16 June. Following group sign-off, the Client Committee would then be able to share the responses with Sidley for incorporation into the PTI Bylaws. Thank you, Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE. From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: Monday, June 6, 2016 at 4:04 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Process for IANA Bylaws - CWG Questions & Issues from Sidley All, The substance and process for dealing with CWG Bylaws was discussed this on last week’s CWG call and then followed up by Lise & myself. Based on the discussions within the CWG, we propose the following course of action in order to get through the work as efficiently as possible. 1. Chairs will make a first attempt at answering / providing relevant input on the Sidley questions 2. Staff will review chairs’ input for consistency with the CWG meeting discussions 3. Answers / input to be shared with IOTF group for further review / development 4. Answers / input to be shared with CWG for further review / development 5. Answers / input to be shared via Client Committee with Sidley for incorporation into IANA Bylaws Thank-you Lise & Jonathan I lean toward this approach. It seems to me that the PTI Board should have this authority on its own; also, it would cause delays if they had to wait to get ICANN approval, causing unnecessary delays. for so long as such powers were strictly limited according to the PTI mission/role etc.
Good evening: Regarding the PTI Bylaws document please note the following: Section 6.6 Advisory Committees PTI Board will not need Advisory Committees as long as it is an integral part of ICANN. in the event of separation, PTI Board will require GAC and ALAC Advisory Committees. In that event, it is likely that PTI will also require SSAC and RSSAC Advisory Committees. Section 7.1 - Officers N.B. The text refers to Officers. The comment refers to Offices. Regards CW On 15 Jun 2016, at 23:16, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> wrote:
<PTIBylaws-AoI_clean_15June.pdf>
I don’t understand your point Christopher, are you saying that there should be reps from the Acs on the PTI board? -JG From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Date: Thursday 16 June 2016 at 01:12 To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>>, "iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org>" <iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated draft of responses in PTI Bylaws-AoI table Good evening: Regarding the PTI Bylaws document please note the following: Section 6.6 Advisory Committees PTI Board will not need Advisory Committees as long as it is an integral part of ICANN. in the event of separation, PTI Board will require GAC and ALAC Advisory Committees. In that event, it is likely that PTI will also require SSAC and RSSAC Advisory Committees. Section 7.1 - Officers N.B. The text refers to Officers. The comment refers to Offices. Regards CW On 15 Jun 2016, at 23:16, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> wrote: <PTIBylaws-AoI_clean_15June.pdf>
No. As long as there is no separation, the existing non-voting liaisons are enough. In the event of separation, there will obviously be a demand from GAC for equivalent influence. After all, one of the primary motives in creating the GAC in the first place (1998) was IANA and its relationship with ccTLDs. CW On 16 Jun 2016, at 07:25, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
I don’t understand your point Christopher, are you saying that there should be reps from the Acs on the PTI board?
-JG
From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Thursday 16 June 2016 at 01:12 To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>, "iotf@icann.org" <iotf@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated draft of responses in PTI Bylaws-AoI table
Good evening:
Regarding the PTI Bylaws document please note the following:
Section 6.6 Advisory Committees
PTI Board will not need Advisory Committees as long as it is an integral part of ICANN.
in the event of separation, PTI Board will require GAC and ALAC Advisory Committees. In that event, it is likely that PTI will also require SSAC and RSSAC Advisory Committees.
Section 7.1 - Officers
N.B. The text refers to Officers. The comment refers to Offices.
Regards
CW
On 15 Jun 2016, at 23:16, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> wrote:
<PTIBylaws-AoI_clean_15June.pdf>
Ah now I understand. I would think the issue of what would happen during a separation and what that would look like would be dealt with at the time through the WG mechanisms we have designed, as there are a number of potential separation scenarios, not all of which require PTI to be spun off as an ongoing concern. Also just to be clear there is no non-voting liaisons to the PTI board that I am aware of. -JG From: Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Date: Thursday 16 June 2016 at 06:37 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Cc: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>>, "iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org>" <iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated draft of responses in PTI Bylaws-AoI table No. As long as there is no separation, the existing non-voting liaisons are enough. In the event of separation, there will obviously be a demand from GAC for equivalent influence. After all, one of the primary motives in creating the GAC in the first place (1998) was IANA and its relationship with ccTLDs. CW On 16 Jun 2016, at 07:25, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: I don’t understand your point Christopher, are you saying that there should be reps from the Acs on the PTI board? -JG From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Date: Thursday 16 June 2016 at 01:12 To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>>, "iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org>" <iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated draft of responses in PTI Bylaws-AoI table Good evening: Regarding the PTI Bylaws document please note the following: Section 6.6 Advisory Committees PTI Board will not need Advisory Committees as long as it is an integral part of ICANN. in the event of separation, PTI Board will require GAC and ALAC Advisory Committees. In that event, it is likely that PTI will also require SSAC and RSSAC Advisory Committees. Section 7.1 - Officers N.B. The text refers to Officers. The comment refers to Offices. Regards CW On 15 Jun 2016, at 23:16, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> wrote: <PTIBylaws-AoI_clean_15June.pdf>
in that case, one would have to be careful to ensure that the PTI Bylaws do not drift into the fundamental bylaws. CW On 16 Jun 2016, at 08:27, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
Ah now I understand. I would think the issue of what would happen during a separation and what that would look like would be dealt with at the time through the WG mechanisms we have designed, as there are a number of potential separation scenarios, not all of which require PTI to be spun off as an ongoing concern.
Also just to be clear there is no non-voting liaisons to the PTI board that I am aware of.
-JG
From: Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Thursday 16 June 2016 at 06:37 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>, "iotf@icann.org" <iotf@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated draft of responses in PTI Bylaws-AoI table
No. As long as there is no separation, the existing non-voting liaisons are enough. In the event of separation, there will obviously be a demand from GAC for equivalent influence.
After all, one of the primary motives in creating the GAC in the first place (1998) was IANA and its relationship with ccTLDs.
CW
On 16 Jun 2016, at 07:25, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
I don’t understand your point Christopher, are you saying that there should be reps from the Acs on the PTI board?
-JG
From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Thursday 16 June 2016 at 01:12 To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>, "iotf@icann.org" <iotf@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated draft of responses in PTI Bylaws-AoI table
Good evening:
Regarding the PTI Bylaws document please note the following:
Section 6.6 Advisory Committees
PTI Board will not need Advisory Committees as long as it is an integral part of ICANN.
in the event of separation, PTI Board will require GAC and ALAC Advisory Committees. In that event, it is likely that PTI will also require SSAC and RSSAC Advisory Committees.
Section 7.1 - Officers
N.B. The text refers to Officers. The comment refers to Offices.
Regards
CW
On 15 Jun 2016, at 23:16, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> wrote:
<PTIBylaws-AoI_clean_15June.pdf>
participants (4)
-
Christopher Wilkinson -
Gomes, Chuck -
Grace Abuhamad -
James Gannon