Fwd: [Fwd: ccPDP Input] (African region 2)
- To: ccnso-issues-comments1@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: ccPDP Input] (African region 2)
- From: BJ.Boswinkel@xxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:10:40 +0200
Input received African Regional Representative
Begin doorgestuurd bericht:
Van: Ali Drissa BADIEL <badiel@xxxxxxxxx>
Datum: 16 juli 2005 17:46:50 GMT+02:00
Aan: Dr Paulos Nyirenda <paulos@xxxxxxxxxxx>, inne <sultane@xxxxxxxxx>, OUEDRAOGO PIERRE <Pierre.Ouedraogo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ccNSO@xxxxxx, "BJ.Boswinkel@xxxxxxx" <BJ.Boswinkel@xxxxxxx>, Chris Disspain <ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Onderwerp: [Fwd: ccPDP Input]
Antwoord aan: badiel@xxxxxxxxx
Please find attached below some input I received from Michucki (.ke);
there are slight differences of approach with the input I provided to
you a few days ago; anyway, you
can consider both inputs.
Looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Ali Drissa BADIEL Tel.: +226 33 88 71
ccNSO Liaison for AfTLD Fax : +226 30 74 14
ONATEL/DINT/FasoNet E-mail: badiel@xxxxxxxxx
Van: Michuki Mwangi <michuki@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Datum: 14 juli 2005 10:23:56 GMT+02:00
Aan: Ali Drissa BADIEL <badiel@xxxxxxxxx>
Onderwerp: ccPDP Input
Further to a mail sent out earlier in the week from Badiel requesting
for input into the ccNSO PDP document and bylaws. I wish to move that we
provide the input for discussion on this list. The deadline for input
from all regions is 16th July 2005 less than a weeks time.
IMHO, we ought to agree on some of the key issues on this list prior to
handing over a final document to Badiel.
To Start with, the following are my comments/input on the issues raised.
A-- Article IX 4.10 on ccNSO members by virtue of their membership
Our proposal is to strike off the words "by virtue of their membership"
from that statement.
C-- Article IX section 6 - Amendment of the by-law
The ccNSO should propose amendments and changes to Annex B and C of the
bylaws to the ICANN Board. If the Board feels that the amendments and
changes are not in the best interests of the ICANN community, a response
should be communicated to the ccNSO for further deliberation. Only
changes and amendments proposed and consented by the ccNSO and its
members should be implemented by the ICANN Board.
E -- Can the ccNSO potentially set binding policies on its members on
activities not defined in Article IX section 1 but authorised by its
The ccNSO should not be in a position to set binding policies that have
not been defined in the Article IX. Our proposal is that any ccNSO
binding policy should be developed through the ccPDP and amendments or
changes be made to the Article IX prior to implementation. This will
lead to a insert to provide for change to the Scope of the Article IX.
F -- Changes to ccPDP and Scope
The ccNSO should be able to change Article IX over time through a PDP.
This will allow for the ccNSO to have ability to set up binding policies
for its scope and members.
G -- Applicable law exemption
With the existing diversities national laws that are applicable to
respective ccNSO members in their countries, we are in favor of the
insertion of a process that will set out the decision of not applying
the conflicting policy.
H -- Initiating a ccPDP
Matters outside the ccNSO should be presented to the members who would
endorse or reject the matter based on relevance. If endorsed by the
members through a voting process, the matter would then be formally
brought forward for discussion through the PDP procedure.
I -- Membership quorum voting on PDP recommendations
It is important to ensure quorum at all rounds of voting. However it is
worth establishing that the 50% vote is representative of all the
regions of the world. While this may complicate the voting process, it
is bound to be an all inclusive vote. For instance, if Asia Pacific
region abstained from the vote for specific region specific concerns,
but the vote attains the 50% quorum, the vote would count regardless of
the concerns. Considerations should be given for quorum in regional
quota systems as deemed appropriate by the members. However, if the 50%
can only be attained by at least a single vote from every region, then
we uphold it as the minimum voting quorum percentage.
J -- Rejection of PDP recommendations by the ICANN Board
The ICANN Board should only be able to reject a Recommendation. It is
expected that the Supplemental Recommendation would have taken the
Boards Statement into consideration. The Board should therefore approve
of Supplemental Recommendations. If the Supplemental Recommendations are
not voted through, the Board should introduce additional and alternative
voting mechanisms to cater for such scenarios.