[NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link

Thu May 11 11:42:49 EEST 2017

Thanks Rafik,

Appreciated to you all for a task well done.

Kind Regards

Poncelet

On 11 May 2017 at 01:38, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks all, with no objections raised here or at NCSG list and with
> support from Mathew, Ayden, Ed and myself, I submitted the NCSG comment
> (attached).
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-05-10 22:01 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>
>> Thanks for this reminder, Rafik. Noting that there has been no opposition
>> expressed on the main Discuss list, I support the submission of this
>> comment and extend my thanks to James and Matthew for drafting it.
>>
>> - Ayden
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link
>> Local Time: May 10, 2017 1:44 PM
>> UTC Time: May 10, 2017 12:44 PM
>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> To: Matthew Shears <matthew at intpolicy.com>
>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> the deadline for submission is less than 12 hours. if there is no
>> objection by then, I think we can submit the comment. please respond asap.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2017-05-10 13:03 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> hi all,
>>>
>>> this a reminder to get the votes/endorsement for the statement.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>> 2017-05-09 22:57 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hi Matt,
>>>>
>>>> thanks for the amendments,
>>>> we need to endorse the comment within 24 hours. please, all PC members
>>>> share your thoughts and if you endorsing or not the statement.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> 2017-05-09 18:36 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears <matthew at intpolicy.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> Would be good if I included the right link:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KPaILgBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscu
>>>>> F77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks to Ayden for noticing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/05/2017 09:39, Matthew Shears wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on the feedback I have substantially redrafted and shortened
>>>>>> our submission.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please edit in the doc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/a/thefactory21.com/document/d/1KPaIL
>>>>>> gBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscuF77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Deadline tomorrow Wed 10 23.59 UTC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 08/05/2017 18:13, avri doria wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> observer view: sounds good
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> not sure the last bullet is needed.  the fact that we are doing this
>>>>>>> through the proper process is good  as a test but is that a reason
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> doing it? but it seems ok to include it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 08-May-17 10:25, Matthew Shears wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks all for the comments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given the discussion, I am wondering whether or not we need to make
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> submission on this (there is only one so far - from AFNIC).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we feel we do, we could in a short statement:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    * Endorse the proposal for the creation of the Board
>>>>>>>> Accountability
>>>>>>>>      Mechanisms Committee (BAMC)
>>>>>>>>    * Recognize the importance of and the need to respect the process
>>>>>>>>      for changing the fundamental bylaws
>>>>>>>>    * State that the proposed change is a useful and
>>>>>>>> non-controversial
>>>>>>>>      way to engage and trial the associated accountability
>>>>>>>> mechanisms
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What other points could be added?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 07/05/2017 07:58, David Cake wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We need to fully respect the process for changing the fundamental
>>>>>>>>> bylaws. I have absolutely no problem with the proposed change to do so -
>>>>>>>>> and actually, I think an uncontroversial change like this is a good trial
>>>>>>>>> for those processes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree with Milton that while change is uncontroversial, it not
>>>>>>>>> only is it a fundamental bylaw, it is part of the accountability
>>>>>>>>> mechanisms, and we should insist that accountability mechanisms are changed
>>>>>>>>> only with due community process.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While I think in general we should avoid micromanaging board
>>>>>>>>> internal processes to this extent, and I understand the reasoning behind
>>>>>>>>> taking mention of a specific board committee out of bylaws, in practice the
>>>>>>>>> current wording is a very simple and easy to understand change, and wording
>>>>>>>>> that removed mention of a specific committee would be more complex and
>>>>>>>>> potentially more ambiguous. If a committee was created specifically for
>>>>>>>>> dealing with Accountability processes, it's unlikely any future changes
>>>>>>>>> would be necessary (the board could effectively recombine committees in the
>>>>>>>>> future if it wished without a bylaws change IMO).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6 May 2017, at 5:42 am, avri doria <avri at APC.ORG> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the problem is that we need to change the fundamental
>>>>>>>>>> bylaws to
>>>>>>>>>> take deciding on board committees out of the fundamental bylaws.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> but in any case, got to do something about the bylaws.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 05-May-17 15:23, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Matt
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is not, and should not be, any way around this. The
>>>>>>>>>>> problem is
>>>>>>>>>>> not that ICANN needs a fundamental bylaw change to “create a new
>>>>>>>>>>> committee,” it is that Article 4 sec 3 of the bylaws, which is
>>>>>>>>>>> designated as “fundamental,” specifically names the BGC as the
>>>>>>>>>>> handler
>>>>>>>>>>> of Reconsideration requests. (““The Board has designated the
>>>>>>>>>>> Board
>>>>>>>>>>> Governance Committee to review and consider any such
>>>>>>>>>>> Reconsideration
>>>>>>>>>>> Requests.”)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Article 4 is also the home of a lot of other “Accountability and
>>>>>>>>>>> Review” stuff that we definitely do not want the board messing
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> without community approval.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So the board needs approval for this and should have to do
>>>>>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>>>>>> this exercise. But if the board decides to create a new
>>>>>>>>>>> “Committee to
>>>>>>>>>>> organize birthday celebrations” or a “Committee to Honor Snapping
>>>>>>>>>>> Turtles” I don’t think there would be any problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And going forward, I guess ICANN legal and the rest of us will be
>>>>>>>>>>> mindful of future flexibility when deciding where to put things
>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>> bylaws.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Professor, School of Public Policy <http://spp.gatech.edu/>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Internet Governance Project
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://internetgovernance.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One issue that has been raised is that it seems silly to have to
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> a fundamental bylaw change for the Board to be able to create a
>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>> committee.  It is not clear that there is anyway around this but
>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> love to hear otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>>>>>>>>> software.
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>>>>>>>>> http://www.avg.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Matthew Shears
>>>>>>>> matthew at intpolicy.com
>>>>>>>> +447712472987
>>>>>>>> Skype:mshears
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Matthew Shears
>>>>> matthew at intpolicy.com
>>>>> +447712472987
>>>>> Skype:mshears
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>

-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd

*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170511/f50755ec/attachment.htm>