[bylaws-coord] [CCWG-ACCT] "community" in draft bylaws

Mon Apr 11 23:40:07 UTC 2016

hi all,

Andrew, thanks for this quick turn around. I think you've proposed a set of
quick pragmatic fixes and I think they give the lawyers enough to go on. If
they don't, I am sure they'll tell us.

This is an application of the broad approach I proposed on the call. I
assumed it likely that references to the community were either nods to "all
those people out there" (as in your first example), or required an action.
My broad proposal was that the definition was the "global Internet
community *that chooses to participate in ICANN structures or provides
input through ICANN public participation mechanisms*" or similar.

In my view the proposals you've made below are an application of this and
work well.

HTH

Cheers
Jordan

On 12 April 2016 at 11:34, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 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.
>
>     THE LIST
>
> 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
>     clear.
>
> 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
>     process."
>
> 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,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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) | Skype: jordancarter
jordan at internetnz.net.nz | www.internetnz.nz

*A better world through a better Internet*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bylaws-coord/attachments/20160412/ad7e6f71/attachment.html>