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

Wed May 10 16:01:23 EEST 2017

Thanks for this reminder, Rafik. Noting that there has been no opposition expressed on the main Discuss list, I support the submission of this comment and extend my thanks to James and Matthew for drafting it.

- Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link
Local Time: May 10, 2017 1:44 PM
UTC Time: May 10, 2017 12:44 PM
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
To: Matthew Shears <matthew at intpolicy.com>
ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>

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/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](tel:%2B447712472987)
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](tel:%2B447712472987)
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/20170510/4a9f7f9f/attachment.htm>