[CWG-Stewardship] [bylaws-coord] FW: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Alissa
I raised this problem and indicated the legal danger of incorporating a document the content of which may unilaterally modified.
I mentioned the danger of giving a blanket agreement to an external document.
The issue is being studied by lasers and I hope they listen to the red lines
Kavouss 
Sent from my iPhone

> On 11 Apr 2016, at 22:46, Mueller, Milton L via bylaws-coord <bylaws-coord at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> The chair of the ICG and several additional members have some important concerns about the draft bylaws. 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
>> Alissa Cooper
>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:49 PM
>> To: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>> 
>> I have looked a bit at the draft bylaws and I’d like to ask Kavouss and Milton
>> to bring the following issue back to the bylaws drafting group:
>> 
>> Section 1.1(d)(ii) incorporates by reference a number of documents external
>> to the bylaws as a means to prevent challenges on the basis that those
>> documents conflict with or violate the bylaws. In particular, bullet (D) applies
>> this provision to "the IANA Naming Function Contract between ICANN and
>> PTI effective [October 1, 2016]."
>> 
>> Given the ICG's historical encouragement of the community to meet
>> timelines necessary for a successful transition, I find this provision to be
>> extremely problematic. It incorporates a reference to a document that does
>> not exist yet and that is unlikely to be completed by the time the bylaws are
>> supposed to be done (early June). In fact, it is not even clear at this point
>> whether the new ICANN affiliate to be setup will be name "PTI" or have
>> some other name. I don't understand how anyone can reason about
>> whether 1.1(d)(ii) is an acceptable bylaws provision if it references a
>> document that has not been written. (This also applies to (B) and (C) since it
>> could apply to future documents that haven’t been written yet.)
>> 
>> Furthermore, I question whether it is a sound decision to essentially allow for
>> documents external to the bylaws to be able to modify the bylaws (under
>> (F)). This section would make more sense if it was entirely internally
>> specified, without the references to external documents. At a minimum, I
>> think we should recommend that (D) be removed.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> _______________________________________________
> bylaws-coord mailing list
> bylaws-coord at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord