Thank you for this, Alp.
First, with respect to canceling the meeting two weeks from now in favor of meeting later in November in order to allow us to check with our SO/AC leadership, that seems like a good idea.
However, if the group wishes to meet in two weeks, or if the subset of members from the affected SOs/ACs wish to meet/discuss this, then I will be happy to join.
With respect to Rec. 2.3 and checking with leadership, the ccNSO Council meets the day after tomorrow and there is insufficient time to prep this and get it on agenda. I will notify Council of this matter at present and prepare some recommendations
for them to discuss at ICANN 78.
For now, best wishes,
David
David McAuley
Policy Director
Verisign, Inc.
From: Alperen Eken <alperen.eken@icann.org>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 7:05 AM
To: WS2 CCG <ws2-ccg@icann.org>
Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com>; Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>; McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com>; Suada Hadzovic <shadzovic@rak.ba>;
陳曼茹 Manju Chen <manju@nii.org.tw>; Melissa Peters Allgood <melissa.allgood@icann.org>; Devan Reed <devan.reed@icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Rec 2.3 Next Steps
|
Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. |
Dear Community Coordination Group Participants,
I hope this email finds you well.
This group was created with the approval of SO and AC chairs and
attached, you can find the Summary of Proposal for a Work Stream 2 Community Coordination Group, you can also find this on our wiki space.
Below, you will find the relevant part of the proposal to Recommendation 2.3:
The WS2 Community Coordination Group will also be where the WS2 recommendations or topics that can benefit from a uniform, community-wide approach will be identified and addressed.Specifically, the CCWG recommendations that appear
to benefit from community coordination are Recommendation 1.1(on seven proposed elements of diversity), Recommendation 1.7(on a process for handling complaints about diversity), and Recommendation 2.3(on a standalone framework for exercising Empowered Community
powers).
And you can find the wording of the
Recommendation 2.3 (p.20) below for reference:
Rec 2.3.1: A standard framework be developed and used to raise the issue of Board removal to the respective body – either the specific
SO/AC who appointed the member or the Decisional Participant in the case of a NomCom appointee. The framework would be in the context of developing a broader framework for implementing community powers and entering into the discussions contemplated by WS1.
This framework could be developed by a new group specifically formed for that purpose.
Rec 2.3.2: Implement the guidelines as a community best practice to apply to all discussions even if not covered by the indemnities contemplated
under Article 20. There may be discussions around rejecting a budget or rejecting a proposed standard Bylaw that would benefit from a good faith process. The guidelines for engaging discussions around Board removal could be adopted as a universal standard
given that they are broad enough to encompass any discussion.
Per the initial proposal for this group above, the group was tasked to handle the WS2 Rec 2.3. However, given that the rest of the recommendations (Rec 2.1 and Rec 2.2) were not completed for
all groups yet, we would like to ask you the following questions. We are looking for responses from your respective groups’ leadership or relevant structures
by the end of October,
hence we would like to propose canceling our next meeting in 2 weeks and schedule one towards the end of November to discuss your responses, please let us know if you want to keep the next
meeting. Also please note that this recommendation applies only to
ALAC, ASO, ccNSO, GAC and GNSO (Relevant members are copied in the email.)
Answer:
Answer:
Answer:
Best regards,
Alp