Page History
...
QUESTION: My understanding is the "Single Member" is a California unincorporated non-profit association governed by certain specific provisions of the California Civil Code.
Correct.
---
QUESTION: Shouldn't the voting be weighted depending on the issue? For example, if it is a gTLD issue, should the GNSO vote be weighted above that of the ccNSO and ASO and vice versa
What ICANN does regularly does not change. Accordingly, the GNSO and the ccNSO will continue to be responsible for policy development within their respective domains. Voting is for special powers that affect all parties equally and is not a specific SO/AC issue. When it comes to specific group issues there is the Independent Review Process (IRP). Members of a particular AC or SO can directly file an IRP and seek a binding decision based on new bylaws standard of review. In other words, the community powers won’t generally affect one SO or AC particularly.
...
No one has reached the decision-point yet, but initial signals indicate that the GNSO is favourably inclined to participate.
---
QUESTION: The CMSM has, for example, five RIR members (i.e., one for each of the RIRs) and five GNSO members (I.e., one for the 1000+ gTLD registries). This is an apparent disparity but I am interested in the discussion that led to this model so I can better understand it. There is a similar disparity that there are only 5 ccTLD members.
Each AC/SO can subdivide its allocated votes as they see fit. There is no requirement to do it by region. The five SOs and ACs with five votes each are those the CCWG sees as most tightly connected to large Internet community constituencies. The lesser voting weight proposed for the remaining ACs are due to their advisory nature or the small number of parties involved in their work. Voting is for special powers that affect all parties equally and is not a specific SO/AC issue, so all groups are likely affected equally.
---
QUESTION: What is the mechanism through which future changes/corrections could be made? For example, it is theoretically possible that (a) if there are only 7 members of the IRP standing panel; and (b) each IRP has a 3-person panel, it could be the case that, depending on the number of IRPs, the panellists could be overwhelmed. Similarly, for example, the proposal to have the Ombudsman make the initial recommendations on Requests for Reconsideration to the BGC can only achieve its purpose of taking the ICANN legal dept. out of the loop, if the Ombudsman is required to work independently of and without consulting the ICANN Legal Department. If that requirement is not dealt with as an "operational detail", what's the mechanism to fix in the future? A Bylaws amendment?
The current proposal is to create a standing panel of at least 7 members, but that number could change based on experience, case load, etc. The mechanisms for adjustments of this type will be developed as part of Work Stream 2 and, of course, subject to community review and input. This would probably not require a further Bylaws change. Likewise, the whole question of the ombuds role is the subject of Work Stream 2, again subject to community review and input. As part of Work Stream 2, the CCWG may well recommend that Ombuds charter now spelled out in the Bylaws be adjusted to provide greater independence, which would require a Bylaws change. Even today, however, the Office of the Ombudsman enjoys a certain measure of independence that makes it a better choice for undertaking initial review of the Requests for Reconsideration.
---
QUESTION: Would the co-chairs wish to comment on the numerous objections which have been raised on the CCWG mailing list regarding process, lack of adherence to the WG's charter, the rapid turn-around of documents for discussion, the general rapidity of discussion and decision making process, etc.?
CCWG-Accountability has been working for many months now (weekly teleconferences and multiple face-to-face meetings). This report is the result of an iterative process. We have thoroughly used the public comment received on the first proposal.. The number of individuals objecting - as opposed to the number of participants - is low. It is normal for bigger projects to be criticized about speed. Some areas of the report already enjoy broad community support although we have outstanding questions to discuss. The process is as inclusive as can be.
...
