[CCWG-ACCT] "community" in draft bylaws

Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Mon Apr 11 23:34:07 UTC 2016


This is my survey of places in the draft bylaws where "the community"
is supposed to do something.

    BACKGROUND (if you just want the list, scroll forward)

I looked (using ordinary text search) for the word "community", and
then read the passage.  This is a little broader than what I did the
other day, which was just the "global Internet community".  But once I
thought about the problem more clearly, it was obvious that we'd need
to cope with this problem generally.  (In case you care, there are 572
occurrences of that magic word in the draft.  Naturally, most of them
are to do with IRP and other such processes.)

I've included here only things where I think there is or might be the
suggestion that some community is supposed to do something and where
the context doesn't make it clear; as a result, the wider search
didn't really turn anything up that was new compared to what I noticed
last week.

In each case below, I suggest an alternative approach that I think is
consistent with the CWG and CCWG reports, but I'm not wedded to any of
those suggestions and if people want to take another approach I'm
happy to get out of the way.  My only goal is to ensure that, where
action is required, there won't be some future battle to decide who is
entitled to be included.  These are in the order in which I find them
in the document.


1.2(a)(vi) "Remain accountable to the Internet community through
mechanisms defined"

    I do NOT think this is an example, and I included it for contrast.
    While it says "accountable to the…community", the real effect of
    the sentence is to say how that happens (through the mechanisms in
    the bylaws).  I hope that makes plain the distinction I'm making.

4.3(e)(i) "CEPs shall…be developed with community involvement"

    I expect "ICANN community" would solve this.

4.3(j)(ii) [The whole section]

    How about this: "ICANN shall initate a process to establish the
    Standing Panel to ensure the availability of a number of IRP
    panelists that is sufficient to allow for the timely resolution of
    Disputes consistent with the Purposes of the IRP, and shall seek
    input about the process and the panelists using its prevailing
    public comment mechanism.  The process shall include a call by
    ICANN for expressions of interest, and shall include public
    comment periods about the nominees to the Standing Panel and the
    designation of the Chair of the Standing Panel.  Nominations for
    panel members shall be open to any qualified person (including
    those not otherwise associated with ICANN)."  The idea here is to
    make clear that "the global Internet community" isn't the ICANN
    ACs and SOs; I don't think anyone conflates them, but it'll be too
    easy to set up the procedures using those mechanisms unless we're

4.3(m)(ii) [whole section]

    I suggest, "ICANN shall initiate a tender process for an
    organization to serve as the IRP Provider to provide
    administrative support for the Standing Panel and IRP Panels; the
    selection shall be subject to ICANN's prevailing public comment

4.3(n)(i) "Members of the global Internet community shall develop
processes for the IRP that are governed by clearly understood and
pre-published rules applicable to all parties (“Rules of Procedure”)."

    I'm quite worried about this one, because I haven't a clue how
    we'd establish "membership" in the global Internet community.  If
    ten random people come up with one process and ten other people
    come up with another inconsistent process, which one is the right
    set of members?  And so on.

    Perhaps, "The ICANN community shall develop processes for the IRP
    using some prevailing ICANN community mechanism (such as a Policy
    Development Process [xref] or Cross-community Working Group [xref]
    or any other such mechanism).  The processes must comprise clearly
    defined rules that are published in advance of any IRP and that
    are available to all parties (“Rules of Procedure”).  Any proposed
    Rules of Procedure shall be subject to the prevailing ICANN public
    comment procedures prior to adoption."

16.1 "as well as other services as determined by ICANN in coordination
with the global internet community."

    I suggest, "…as well as other services as determined by ICANN in
    coordination with other existing or potential direct consumers of
    IANA functions."

19.2(b)(ii) "Solicit input from ICANN and the global internet community
on requirements to plan and participate in the IANA Naming Function
RFP process."

    It isn't actually clear to me how _either_ of these is to be
    achieved because I'm not sure I understand it.  But perhaps,
    "Solicit input from ICANN staff, and from the community (through
    the prevailing ICANN public comment process) on requirements to
    plan …"?

As near as I can tell, every other use of "community" in the document
is either a name of some process, or is obviously referring to some
specific previously-named community, or is just harmless (such as
needing to do things in service of "the global Internet community",
which seems to me to be like saying "in service of anyone who's ever
used or might someday use the Internet".  I suppose there'd be an
argument that those uses ought to be clarified too, but in my reading
they're all mostly aspirational rather than actionable.  Of course, to
my great regret, I'm not a lawyer; so I could be wrong about those cases).

I hope this is helpful to the CCWG and the drafting lawyers.  Thanks
to everyone for all the hard work.

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list