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]> 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]>
>> Date: 2014-08-26 20:58 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] DIDP Proposal / Bylaws Change
>> To: [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>
|
