[CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how bylaw changes are made

Thu Jan 1 21:35:09 UTC 2015

On the issue of posing specific questions to the Board, I am in strong agreement with Paul. While some may differ on which questions are most important and appropriate, there should be no hesitation in asking them.

Those who were involved with ICANN in its formative and early days, when meetings were attended by a few hundred at best, tell me it was quite clear at that time that the community comprised ICANN and that the Board and (very limited) staff were there to serve the community, With meeting attendance now in the thousands and with the very rapid expansion of staff under the current management that point may get lost.

But let’s not forget it. ICANN is its community first and foremost, and the community selects the Board. We should never hesitate to question Board members individually or collectively, and to be satisfied with nothing less than clear answers on which we can rely.

And if we’re not willing to do that, perhaps we should consider whether the multistakeholder model has failed and advise NTIA accordingly.

BTW, Happy New Year.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2015 3:35 PM
To: 'Kavouss Arasteh'; 'Seun Ojedeji'
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how bylaw changes are made

Bruce is a wonderful man.  But we don’t need his opinion, we need a formal commitment from the Board.  That’s why we need to ask the question in an official manner.

Indeed, I would posit that if the accountability working group tasked with ensuring accountability by ICANN is reluctant to even ask the Board a question then the communities capacity to actually reign in Board excess when/if it perceives such would be very limited.  If we are so unwilling to even ask a question, will we be willing to tell the Board “no.”

In any event, if we choose not to ask this question, then the scope of WS1 has just expanded to essentially include almost all oversight mechanisms we might conceivably want – which would, I think, be the wrong result.

Warm regards
Paul

**NOTE:  OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***
509 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>

From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2015 10:09 AM
To: Seun Ojedeji
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how bylaw changes are made

Dear All
I agree to the term that no one should dictate the CCWG.
Still why there is a need that we  raise any such question to the Board,
 Bruce is quite active and requested to continue the Liaison
Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 1 Jan 2015, at 15:28, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Bruce,

Thanks for this information, I will then suggest that this WG determine if those steps will indeed be appropriate for us especially since WS1 is more of a perquisite to transition. One would expect some adjustments on timing and wording rights to be made in the process, also board voting rights in this particular process may need to be agreed upon. It will not be encouraging to have  implementation stopped on the basis of no 2/3 board majority....time utilization is an important factor in all these. So the earlier we involve board (without having them dictate for us) the better.

Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 1 Jan 2015 04:55, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>> wrote:
Hello Seun,

>>  I think writing to board to know how it will treat the WG outcome especially when some of it's implementations will require by-law modifications that further involve the ICANN community in decision making process may be useful.

In terms of the process for making bylaws changes, changes have previously been made to accommodate recommendations from the review teams associated with the work of the Accountability and Transparency Review Teams (ATRT)  https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/atrt-2012-02-25-en .

Any archive of all previous versions of the bylaws is available here:
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/archive-bc-2012-02-25-en

Based on our current practice I would expect the process to be as follows:

- Board accepts recommendations from the CCWG

- General Counsel's office prepares specific text to change in the bylaws

- proposed bylaws changes are put out for public comment  (45 days)

- Board then votes on the bylaws amendments  - a 2/3 majority of the Board is required to make a bylaw change

If there is significant community comments against the proposed bylaws language - then a new draft of the bylaws would be put out for public comment that is consistent with the recommendations from the CCWG.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8838 - Release Date: 12/30/14
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150101/37660c02/attachment.html>