[CCWG-ACCT] Fundamental Bylaws memo

Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Fri Apr 24 14:52:49 UTC 2015

I agree completely with Malcolm.  Of all the dangers we face in the IANA
transition, the prospect of ICANN using its control of the IANA function
policy to foster other policy preferences is the most likely to arise, even
from good motives ..... and therefore the most essential to forestall.


Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key

-----Original Message-----
From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz] 
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 10:37 AM
To: Malcolm Hutty; Jordan Carter; Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fundamental Bylaws memo

This is exactly why we asked whether a higher threshold should be set to
change the mission.  Thanks Malcolm

J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  / becky.burr at neustar.biz
/ www.neustar.biz

On 4/24/15, 3:17 AM, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:

>On 23/04/2015 05:11, Jordan Carter wrote:
>> Hi all
>> For those not on the call, the attached is to deal with a gap in the 
>>draft  comment report.
>> It has only come into existence in the past 24h as we realised the gap.
>> Apols for the short notice, as explained by Mathieu.
>Dear Jordan and Becky,
>Thank you for spotting this omission, and producing this proposal to 
>address it.
>I would like to support it in all respects save one, the threshold for 
>changing fundamental bylaws, which I think you have set too low.
>You say that "ICANN should be able to expand its Mission only under 
>very limited circumstances". I agree, but I do not think that 3/4 Board 
>plus an unspecified supermajority of the community council is high enough.
>Compare the process to spill the Board, a near consensus ("75%/85%") is 
>required in 2/3s of the SOs and ACs to even ask the community council 
>to consider a spill. I do not think that spilling the Board should be 
>harder to achieve than expanding the Mission, so I propose that we also 
>require a near consensus in 2/3s of the SOACs (including at least one
>SO) for a change in Fundamental Bylaws to be considered by the 
>community council.
>Kind Regards,
>            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog  London 
>Internet Exchange | 
>                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
>           21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
>         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list