<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:PC-NCSG@ipjustice.org">PC-NCSG@ipjustice.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg">http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>