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

Wed May 10 15:44:52 EEST 2017

Hi all,

the deadline for submission is less than 12 hours. if there is no objection
by then, I think we can submit the comment. please respond asap.

Best,

Rafik

2017-05-10 13:03 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

> 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/20170510/1e1988a4/attachment.htm>