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> >