<html>
<body>
At 14/12/2015 11:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hello Alan,<br><br>
To avoid repeating what may have been already said, is it possible to see
the current updated draft i.e The version you intend to present to ccwg?
Also I do hope that there will still be opportunity to review beyond the
ccwg meeting.<br><br>
That said, a few comments on your draft below(again at the fear of
repetition):<br><br>
- Spelling/grammatical checks needs to be done. Which I think Tim may
have done justice to<br><br>
- line 93: Supporting inclusion of human rights in the bylaw is too
strong a statement. I'd suggest that it be conditioned on seeing the
actual bylaw text. Maybe we should even ask ourselves whether any form of
human rights text be included in the bylaw? If I were to answer, my
response will be that; for a technical organisation like ICANN, I'd say
NO.</blockquote><br>
I will re-word to say we support the proposed text as opposed to simply
saying we support HR in Bylaws. Thanks for catching that. We can talk
about whether we wantto withdraw that support at the IANA-Issues talk
tomorrow.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">- We did not indicate
support/against for some of the recommendations? Is this just focusing on
where we have issues? as I thought we should state our stand for all the
recommendations, even if it's just 1 line of support.</blockquote><br>
The formal comment will follow the template and give our position for
each recommendation (as my PPT did). This is just the problem
areas.<br><br>
For the rest, we can discuss tomorrow at the IANA-Issues call, but see my
comments below. We REALLY need to focus on issues that will prevent us
from ratifying, not just tweak the proposal.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">- I support the observation made
by Olivier on budget veto and I believe it should be included.<br><br>
Other comments on the proposal:<br><br>
- As usual, I still have huge concern on the ability for appointing SO/AC
to remove its board member. </blockquote><br>
I think we are beyond that now. Even the Board is agreeing...<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">- The ability for anyone(except
the originator) to petition a bylaw implementation that results from PDP
is IMO absurd as it seem quite top down. However I can live with it but
suggest that the requirement for originating PDP support be moved to the
"triggering review of petition" layer instead of "power
exercising layer" in the escalation
process(para76)</blockquote><br>
The Board has proposed re-wording to clarify exactly what the process is.
I cannot see making a big fuss about at what point the SO originating the
PDP can effectively kill this power being exercised. There are SO many
things in both the CWG and CCWG which could have been done cleaner, but
that is the by-product of MS and compromise.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">- Removal of nomcom appointed
board member should have same threshold of 4 support and not 3 as
currently stated in row 107 (para90)</blockquote><br>
Do we really want to re-open this one?<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">- I know there was CWG
requirement to veto ICANN budget, I really wonder if that included the
IANA budget as well. So I am really concerned by the current wording of
Para153/154. I mean, is there any reason why IANA would be made to lack
funding considering this is the actual technical work of ICANN? I fear
those paras if effected could have unintended consequences. The IANA
serves not just the numbers community!</blockquote><br>
It was a requirement. This has also been raised by the Board.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">- The threshold for removing
entire board has to be absolute! i.e 5/5 and when it's 4 participating
then it should be 4/4; if we are going to break the organisation, we
should all take the responsibility. (Para176-181)</blockquote><br>
I note that we did not require 100% in the 2nd draft.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">- Which work stream 1 is
referred to in para267? Perhaps we need to clarify when work stream 1
ends and when 2 commence as I think that paragraph may be misplaced in
its current form.</blockquote><br>
There is only one WS1. It ends when we issue the final proposal in a
couple of weeks.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">- Aside the overreaching
discussion on "consensus requirement" GAC as an AC has been
given more recognition by the virtue of having a formal board threshold
to reject their advice. This in my view further gives formality/attention
to GAC advice by the board. In view of this, I believe ALAC should
request a former commitment from board to give our advice more attention
as well. I don't know how we can say this in the comment period (without
causing any uproar). Para274/5</blockquote><br>
There is already an ATRT recommendation that has been accepted that
somewhat strenthens out position. In my mind, there is no way to re-open
that discussion now.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Regards<br><br>
"Sent from my handheld, do pardon any mistype ;-)"<br>
On Dec 14, 2015 7:29 AM, "Alan Greenberg"
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>The IANA Issues WG met on Friday to discuss possible issue on the
CCWG-Accountability 3rd draft proposal. <br><br>
<dd>The CCWG documents can be founds at
<a href="https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56145016">
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56145016</a>.<br>
<br>
<dd>The document discussed at the IANA-Issues meeting can be found linked
to the Agenda Item 3 of
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/PIdlAw">
https://community.icann.org/x/PIdlAw</a> (entitled Review of Proposal and
Potential ALAC Positions</b>).<br><br>
<dd>We need to send a summary of our comments to the CCWG today (in time
for a CCWG meeting on Tuesday at 06:00 UTC). The attached document
summarizes the issues as modified by the discussion during the
teleconference.<br><br>
<dd>Please send any comments in sufficient time for me to integrate them
(as appropriate) into the documents. In particular, is there anything
here that is counter to the tone or detail of the discussion?<br><br>
<dd>The Final Public Comment must be submitted no later than 21 December.
It will no doubt closely follow the attached document, but may well
include other issues that come to light over the next days.<br><br>
<dd>As ALL ALAC member will be asked to vote on the Public Comments and
will ultimately have to decide whether to ratify the CCWG Proposal, this
is both important and time-sensitive.<br><br>
<dd>To the extent that is possible and you feel appropriate, please
involve your RALOs.<br><br>
<dd>Alan<br><br>
<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>ALAC mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br><br>
<dd>At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a>
<br>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>