Terrific, tx so much to Ed for drafting and Stephanie for editing. I 
think this request should go in as soon as possible. Please let us know 
the progress.

In the meantime, let's please continue this discussion of proposed GAC 
vetos and NomCom changes.
Best,
Kathy

> 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
>