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<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-final-24jun18-en.p...> (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.) 1. How does your group approach this recommendation, does your group intend to implement this good practice recommendation or not? Please note that implementation of this recommendation will require coordination within this group per the initial proposal. Answer: 1. Should the WS2 CCG discuss these recommendations immediately or should the group wait until each relevant AC and SO completes the WS2 Rec 2.1 and 2.2? Answer: 1. If your group thinks that this recommendation should be handled elsewhere, please include your suggestions. Answer: Best regards, Alp
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<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1rt9zJxj-9nnbqVmNHYwQvH9DCnusvt62cBV-eUXN6sYEwY...> (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.) 1. How does your group approach this recommendation, does your group intend to implement this good practice recommendation or not? Please note that implementation of this recommendation will require coordination within this group per the initial proposal. Answer: 2. Should the WS2 CCG discuss these recommendations immediately or should the group wait until each relevant AC and SO completes the WS2 Rec 2.1 and 2.2? Answer: 3. If your group thinks that this recommendation should be handled elsewhere, please include your suggestions. Answer: Best regards, Alp
Hello Alp and WS2 CCG colleagues, With respect to your email, Alp, of September 18th (below), I have broached this matter with ccNSO Council leadership and plan to attend their meetings at ICANN 78. However, FYI, the initial feedback I am getting is that this will in all likelihood be a matter that will be referred by Council to the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee (on which I serve). That committee is in many respects a governance-like committee for ccNSO. Should that referral take place – and I assume that it will – it will make it very unlikely that I will be able to respond by the end of October. I will collaborate with ccNSO Council and endeavor to sort this with dispatch, but I wanted to note this as we approach ICANN 78. Best regards, 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<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1rt9zJxj-9nnbqVmNHYwQvH9DCnusvt62cBV-eUXN6sYEwY...> (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.) 1. How does your group approach this recommendation, does your group intend to implement this good practice recommendation or not? Please note that implementation of this recommendation will require coordination within this group per the initial proposal. Answer: 2. Should the WS2 CCG discuss these recommendations immediately or should the group wait until each relevant AC and SO completes the WS2 Rec 2.1 and 2.2? Answer: 3. If your group thinks that this recommendation should be handled elsewhere, please include your suggestions. Answer: Best regards, Alp
Hi Alp, Sorry for the extremely late reply. On behalf of the GNSO Council, kindly find our response below.
1. How does your group approach this recommendation, does your group intend to implement this good practice recommendation or not? Please note that implementation of this recommendation will require coordination within this group per the initial proposal.
*Answer: *The GNSO is one of the SO/ACs that has completed
implementation of the WS2 recommendations 2.1 and 2.2. In December 2022, the Council resolved to adopt the CCOICI WS2 Recommendations Report. In the report, the CCOICI marked all but one relevant recommendation as implementation completed; the only recommendation (2.1.2) marked as 'implementation planned' was implemented right after Council's adoption.
1. Should the WS2 CCG discuss these recommendations immediately or should the group wait until each relevant AC and SO completes the WS2 Rec 2.1 and 2.2?
*Answer*: The WS2 CCG should wait until each relevant AC and SO completes
WS2 Recommendations 2.1 and 2.2.
1. If your group thinks that this recommendation should be handled elsewhere, please include your suggestions.
*Answer*: This recommendation could also be handled by the CIP-CCG.
Best, Manju
participants (3)
-
Alperen Eken -
McAuley, David -
陳曼茹 Manju Chen