<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Terrific, tx so much to Ed for drafting
and Stephanie for editing. I think this request should go in as
soon as possible. Please let us know the progress.<br>
<br>
In the meantime, let's please continue this discussion of proposed
GAC vetos and NomCom changes.<br>
Best,<br>
Kathy<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53FC8BDA.2070206@mail.utoronto.ca" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Thanks for doing this Ed, this is great! I could become a real
enthusiast of this process!!! Having been a FOIA coordinator here
in Canada, I have reacted like a bureaucrat and suggested a few
word changes in the attached markup version...some for clarity,
and some because I can imagine documents which in fact might fit
in some of the categories, which the GAC could have in their
possession, and could have submitted to the Board. <br>
I think we need, on a separate note, to be pushing for independent
oversight of such requests, through the Ombudsman. You don't have
that in the US, but in Canada we have independent Information
Commissioners who review exemption decisions (among many other
things). That would be a good thing, as the Board appears to have
some accountability issues, possibly statutory in nature, that
make their review of staff decisions on these matters problematic.<br>
Great job!<br>
Stephanie Perrin <br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14-08-26 8:05 AM, Rafik Dammak
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAH5sThmfc8H7TUA_upaPjAeQU8D3wTZU=+Ly5r68rovcA1VLZw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div dir="ltr">Hi everyone,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>that was requested for NCSG PC consideration.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Rafik<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message
----------<br>
From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Edward Morris</b> <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:emorris@milk.toast.net">emorris@milk.toast.net</a>></span><br>
Date: 2014-08-26 20:58 GMT+09:00<br>
Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] DIDP Proposal / Bylaws Change<br>
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu">NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<div>
<div
style="font-family:tahoma;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:19px;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;background-image:none;background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);background-repeat:repeat
repeat">
<div>Hi,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Public comments are now open for a proposal to
change the threshold the Board needs to act contrary
to GAC advice from it’s current simple majority to a
2/3 vote (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en"
target="_blank">
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en</a>
). There has been considerable discussion about this
issue on the NCUC list during which I suggested we
might want to do a DIDP in order to become fully
informed about the impetus for this change. This
proposal has received some support.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The goals of the DIDP are two fold:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>1. To learn more about the dynamics that has led
to this proposal. Is there resistance on the Board?
That would be useful to know as we plan our
response.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>2. I’m hopeful that this may be the first DIDP in
recent history to actually result in the release of
documents. As I demonstrate in the attached draft,
the usual reasons cited by staff for refusing to
give requested information – the DCND – do not apply
in this instance.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If, despite this, staff refuses to give us any
additional information on matters concerning a
change in the Bylaws, the most serious of all
issues, it strengthens our case that current
transparency rules should in no way be confused with
the FOIA standards suggested in the Thune / Rubio
letter. Our call for greater transparency in ICANN
would be strengthened.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I’d like to ask members of the NCSG PC to please
take a look at the attached DIDP draft, make changes
as necessary and decide whether or not to proceed
with this approach. Time is of the essence. ICANN
has 30 days to respond to this DIDP Request once
filed and the Reply Period for the proposed Bylaws
change ends on October 6th. It would be nice to get
a response from ICANN prior to the close of the
Reply Period so we as a community and as individuals
can comment on the basis of what we receive, if
anything.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ed</div>
<div> </div>
<div>P.S. To those on the NCUC list my apology for the
cross post. As Avri astutely suggested, if I’m
asking for support of the NCSG PC the draft should
be posted on the SG list. Now it is.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:PC-NCSG@ipjustice.org">PC-NCSG@ipjustice.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg">http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>