Thanks, Friends,

for all the good work. Since a year ago I live in the province, between 
some hills, I have only occasional Internet access (when I travel out), 
so I cannot participate more actively.

But that is why I send you now my thanks - your efforts are along the 
same line I tried to follow when I was more active - as a NCUC member, 
later as a GNSO councilor, and finally in the Nominating Committee.

Almost "retired",


Norbert
Cambodia

=

On 8/27/2014 1:45 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the draft and revision Ed and Stephanie. I am certainly in 
> favour of submitting this. The more information we have on the context 
> of this proposed amendment to the by-laws, the more informed we will 
> be on submitting feedback to the proposal.
>
> I would like to (grudgingly) note that according to the ICANN by-laws, 
> all that is required to amend those very by-laws is a 2/3 vote by the 
> board in favour. I don’t even think that a public comment period is 
> mandatory. I’m not entirely sure about this, but this requirement 
> isn't explicitly made clear in the by-laws or even the articles of 
> incorporation. This would change if ICANN became a membership-based 
> organisation (not that I am saying this is a good thing as I haven’t 
> really thought out the ramifications).
>
> I suspect that this will come to a board vote, and when it does, I 
> hope there is so much push-back from the community; enough to have the 
> required number of board members vote against the amendment.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Aug 26, 2014, at 3:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin 
> <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for doing this Ed, this is great!  I could become a real 
>> enthusiast of this process!!!  Having been a FOIA coordinator here in 
>> Canada, I have reacted like a bureaucrat and suggested a few word 
>> changes in the attached markup version...some for clarity, and some 
>> because I can imagine documents which in fact might fit in some of 
>> the categories, which the GAC could have in their possession, and 
>> could have submitted to the Board.
>> I think we need, on a separate note, to be pushing for independent 
>> oversight of such requests, through the Ombudsman.  You don't have 
>> that in the US, but in Canada we have independent Information 
>> Commissioners who review exemption decisions (among many other 
>> things).  That would be a good thing, as the Board appears to have 
>> some accountability issues, possibly statutory in nature, that make 
>> their review of staff decisions on these matters problematic.
>> Great job!
>> Stephanie Perrin
>> On 14-08-26 8:05 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> that was requested for NCSG PC consideration.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: *Edward Morris* <[log in to unmask] 
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>> Date: 2014-08-26 20:58 GMT+09:00
>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] DIDP Proposal / Bylaws Change
>>> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> Public comments are now open for a proposal to change the threshold 
>>> the Board needs to act contrary to GAC advice from it’s current 
>>> simple majority to a 2/3 vote 
>>> (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en 
>>> ). There has been considerable discussion about this issue on the 
>>> NCUC list during which I suggested we might want to do a DIDP in 
>>> order to become fully informed about the impetus for this change. 
>>> This proposal has received some support.
>>> The goals of the DIDP are two fold:
>>> 1. To learn more about the dynamics that has led to this proposal. 
>>> Is there resistance on the Board? That would be useful to know as we 
>>> plan our response.
>>> 2. I’m hopeful that this may be the first DIDP in recent history to 
>>> actually result in the release of documents. As I demonstrate in the 
>>> attached draft, the usual reasons cited by staff for refusing to 
>>> give requested information – the DCND – do not apply in this instance.
>>> If, despite this, staff refuses to give us any additional 
>>> information on matters concerning a change in the Bylaws, the most 
>>> serious of all issues, it strengthens our case that current 
>>> transparency rules should in no way be confused with the FOIA 
>>> standards suggested in the Thune / Rubio letter. Our call for 
>>> greater transparency in ICANN would be strengthened.
>>> I’d like to ask members of the NCSG PC to please take a look at the 
>>> attached DIDP draft, make changes as necessary and decide whether or 
>>> not to proceed with this approach. Time is of the essence. ICANN has 
>>> 30 days to respond to this DIDP Request once filed and the Reply 
>>> Period for the proposed Bylaws change ends on October 6th. It would 
>>> be nice to get a response from ICANN prior to the close of the Reply 
>>> Period so we as a community and as individuals can comment on the 
>>> basis of what we receive, if anything.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ed
>>> P.S. To those on the NCUC list my apology for the cross post. As 
>>> Avri astutely suggested, if I’m asking for support of the NCSG PC 
>>> the draft should be posted on the SG list. Now it is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> <anewdipsp.docx>
>