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 <[log in to unmask]> 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