[NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes

[Matthew Shears]

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170508/1bb77c4d/attachment.htm>