[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] DIDP Proposal / Bylaws Change

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi everyone,

that was requested for NCSG PC consideration.

Best,

Rafik
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Edward Morris <emorris at milk.toast.net>
Date: 2014-08-26 20:58 GMT+09:00
Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] DIDP Proposal / Bylaws Change
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu


 Hi,

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 (
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en
). 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.

The goals of the DIDP are two fold:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks,

Ed

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140826/7ac7b0b7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: anewdip.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml
Size: 125007 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140826/7ac7b0b7/attachment-0001.bin>