NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:58:52 -0400
Content-Type:
multipart/mixed
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (2117 bytes) , text/html (2772 bytes) , anewdip.docx (125 kB)
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.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2