[NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes

[avri doria]

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