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

Thu May 11 04:38:31 EEST 2017

Thanks all, with no objections raised here or at NCSG list and with support
from Mathew, Ayden, Ed and myself, I submitted the NCSG comment (attached).

Best,

Rafik

2017-05-10 22:01 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> 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/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/20170511/e0f1c219/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSGCommentsBGCChanges.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 86103 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170511/e0f1c219/attachment.pdf>