Amended NCSG comment on Proposed BGC Changes

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi all,

Please find here the latest version amended by Matt based on the discussion
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KPaILgBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscuF77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing
The policy committee is reviewing the comment for endorsment.

Best,

Rafik

On May 8, 2017 11:25 PM, "Matthew Shears" <matthew at intpolicy.com> 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> <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/>
<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 Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987
<+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears


_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170509/435b0157/attachment.htm>