[NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes

[Matthew Shears]

Hi all

Based on the feedback I have substantially redrafted and shortened our 
submission.

Please edit in the doc.

https://docs.google.com/a/thefactory21.com/document/d/1KPaILgBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscuF77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing

Deadline tomorrow Wed 10 23.59 UTC.

Matthew


On 08/05/2017 18:13, avri doria wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-- 
Matthew Shears
matthew at intpolicy.com
+447712472987
Skype:mshears