[CCWG-ACCT] Regharding processes for creating or changing fundamental bylaws

[Jordan Carter]

hi all, hi Bruce

We've never proposed that any new initiation path be created for changes to
any kind of bylaws. This is all about the approval process, nothing to do
with the "where do proposed changes arise from" question - it's out of
scope for WS1 to deal with that, in my view.

So whether a bylaws change is fundamental or standard, it should still come
up through the ICANN community, be subject to the usual consultation
processes etc, and then there is a co-approval process.

That is why it isn't appropriate to go through the usual escalation
process. Instead, that would should have been done. If it hasn't been done,
there isn't any proposal to co-decide on - and if the Board was trying to
rush a change to fundamental bylaws, the community would very quickly
decide no.

SO -- the approach we need to take is to have the escalation steps
available if demanded, but otherwise move straight from a proposed change
to a fundamental bylaw triggering the Conference Call step, to decision. If
the SOs and ACs decide a forum is needed that could also be held, as per
the decision of the # set out in the table, but otherwise and uniquely for
this sole Approval power, the question proceeds to decision.

cheers
Jordan

On 12 November 2015 at 13:16, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> Just picking up on the post from Tijani.
>
> >> I think for the Fundamental Bylaws modification, the Board (or the
> community) proposes the modification In case the community proposes the
> modification It should go through the escalation process we described for
> the other powers to trigger the modification process, consult about its
> pertinence, formulate the proposal and then decide to submit the proposal,
> but perhaps with other thresholds then, and if the board accepts the
> proposal, it will put it to public comment In case the Board is the trigger
> of the modification, the community should go through the escalation process
> to approve or reject the proposal.
>
> Practically for the creation or change of fundamental bylaws, I expect the
> Board would run the following process:
>
> - post the proposed bylaw or change to existing bylaw for public comment
>
> - seek direct input from each SO and AC on whether they support that change
>
> - only approve the change if there is the relevant level of support from
> the SOs and ACs
>
>
> I understand that the community power could be an escalation if somehow
> the Board approves a change without first getting input from the SOs and
> ACs - but I think that situation will be highly unlikely.   Board approval
> is usually a final step - and essentially the Board approves when it is
> convinced there is a consensus in the community for the change.
>
> Also as I have noted before - it is rare if ever (I can't recall a case)
> that the Board ever initiates a bylaw change on its own.   The change has
> usually come as a result of a community process - e.g. a policy
> recommendation from a SO, a recommendation from a cross-community working
> group, a recommendation from an AoC review team, or a recommendation from
> one of our other organizational reviews.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>



-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ*

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter
Web: www.internetnz.nz

*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151112/9d4eae32/attachment.html>