[WP2] this is the document we'll use for our discussion of the IRP

[Greg Shatan]

It was more of a normative suggestion than a disagreement.  Perhaps
agreement in part/disagreement in part with each of you.  I don't think the
document Becky offered up implies or will require volumes of detail, at
least not in the Bylaws.  I think that all of the features of this document
can be captured relatively easily in a revised Bylaw.

Since one picture is worth 1000 words (or something like that), I have
revised Article IV, Section 3 of the Bylaws to capture every aspect of the
document under discussion, at the level of detail generally expected in
Bylaws.  It's about 500 words longer than the unrevised bylaw (which was
1400 words).  This is attached, with my changes in track changes.  This is
merely a first draft, and more to demonstrate that it is manageable task we
have to revise the Bylaws appropriately.

In addition we will need to provide guidance for the implementation of
these bylaws, with the drafting of rules, procedures, etc., which should be
done initially in WS2 (which may decide to further deputize other groups to
carry out various aspects of detail work).

Greg

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:

>
> On 22/07/2015 16:28, Greg Shatan wrote:
> > Malcolm,
> >
> > I think the level of detail we have should mirror the level of detail in
> > the current bylaws section on the IRP (Article IX, Section 3), unless
> > there are strong reasons to do otherwise.  We are essentially revising
> > the current bylaws, not creating new text from whole cloth.  I would not
> > be in favor of providing significantly /less/ detail in the revised
> > bylaws as compared to the current bylaws.  We may want to provide
> > additional guidance for the implementation of these bylaws, but this
> > guidance need not and should not appear in the bylaws themselves.
>
>
> From your tone I suspect you meant to disagree with my suggestion, but
> actually it was offered as a way of avoiding the need to introduce the
> volumes of extra detail implied by Becky's paper.
>
> Becky's paper does helpfully identify a considerable number of issues
> that will need to be addressed sooner or later - and I don't think it's
> even exhaustive. If we don't want to add huge amounts of new detail now,
> and we don't create some form of community power to develop the IRP as I
> suggest, how do you suggest we ensure those issues ever get resolved?
>
> Malcolm.
>
> > Perhaps we need to be more careful to keep current bylaws provisions in
> > front of us when we are discussing their revised versions.
> >
> > Greg
>
> --
>             Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>    Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
>  London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>
>                  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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2/attachments/20150722/6e673e06/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Independent Review Bylaws revised per WP2 draft.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 28299 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2/attachments/20150722/6e673e06/IndependentReviewBylawsrevisedperWP2draft-0001.docx>