<html><body>
<div style="font-family: tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 19px;
font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image: none;
background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: padding-box;
background-clip: border-box; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);
background-size: auto; background-position: 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
href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en">
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>
</body></html>