[NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link

[Matthew Shears]

Hi

Would be good if I included the right link:

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

Thanks to Ayden for noticing.

Matthew


On 09/05/2017 09:39, Matthew Shears wrote:
> 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