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

Tue May 9 17:40:43 EEST 2017

Already sent to ncsg list the latest version.

Rafik

On May 9, 2017 11:23 PM, "Ayden Férdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

It looks good to me. I am holding off on endorsement for now to see if
Milton or someone else has any feedback first, as a few days ago there were
some concerns. Should we send the comment to the main Discuss list to see
if there are any last-minute comments? If none are raised I am happy to
support the submission of this comment. A huge thanks to Matthew and James
for drafting it.

- Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link
Local Time: May 9, 2017 2:57 PM
UTC Time: May 9, 2017 1:57 PM
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
To: Matthew Shears <matthew at intpolicy.com>
ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>

Hi Matt,

thanks for the amendments,
we need to endorse the comment within 24 hours. please, all PC members
share your thoughts and if you endorsing or not the statement.

Best,

Rafik

2017-05-09 18:36 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears <matthew at intpolicy.com>:

> Hi
>
> Would be good if I included the right link:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KPaILgBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscu
> F77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/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/1KPaIL
>> gBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscuF77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/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
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170509/aa3f7e25/attachment.htm>