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

Wed May 10 07:03:13 EEST 2017

hi all,

this a reminder to get the votes/endorsement for the statement.

Best,

Rafik

2017-05-09 22:57 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

> 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/20170510/0faabb8f/attachment.htm>