<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Thanks all for the comments.</p>
<p>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). <br>
</p>
<p>If we feel we do, we could in a short statement:<br>
</p>
<ul>
<li>Endorse the proposal for the creation of the Board
Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) <br>
</li>
<li>Recognize the importance of and the need to respect the
process for changing the fundamental bylaws <br>
</li>
<li>State that the proposed change is a useful and
non-controversial way to engage and trial the associated
accountability mechanisms</li>
</ul>
<p>What other points could be added?</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>Matthew<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/05/2017 07:58, David Cake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:514702CC-E21D-4A24-9246-3D2E69868E91@davecake.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 6 May 2017, at 5:42 am, avri doria <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:avri@APC.ORG"><avri@APC.ORG></a> 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
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://spp.gatech.edu/"><http://spp.gatech.edu/></a>
Georgia Institute of Technology
Internet Governance Project
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://internetgovernance.org/">http://internetgovernance.org/</a>
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.avg.com">http://www.avg.com</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Matthew Shears
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:matthew@intpolicy.com">matthew@intpolicy.com</a>
+447712472987
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="Skype:mshears">Skype:mshears</a></pre>
</body>
</html>