[bylaws-coord] Next steps for Bylaws drafting

[Greg Shatan]

This raises critical questions and serious concerns, which I've put
inline.  The use of the passive voice in this is quite astounding -- in a
number of critical spots, you can't tell who is supposed to be doing what.
That makes it quite impossible to understand the process.  The timing (or
lack of time for any meaningful work or response by anyone but Staff and
Board) is deeply troubling.

Is this just the Board's review of the comments? Is the community being
written out of the process from this point forward? If so, just say so, so
that we can react accordingly.  Answers that fail to address these issues,
failures to respond, and answers that obscure the role of the parties in
this process are harmful, not helpful.

I have been a defender of this process and this timeline in a variety of
contexts, but I am losing faith.

I would strongly suggest that a review of the comments and a decision on
amendments by the Bylaws Coordination Group should be a step in this
process. If that requires another week (or more), so be it.

The irony that the community may have no way to hold this process
accountable to the community is overwhelming.

I'm extremely concerned with where we are in this process -- which was
supposed to represent the community's voice in proposing revisions to the
Bylaws.

Greg


On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Bruce Tonkin <
Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> Here is my current understanding of the process steps towards the Board
> meeting on 27 May to consider the new bylaws:
>
> 25 May - Staff sends out a summary of all comments and any proposed
> changes
> ​[GSS: PROPOSED BY WHOM? WILL THIS INCLUDE EVERY CHANGE PROPOSED IN ALL
> THE COMMENTS, OR JUST COMMENTS CHOSEN BY SOME BODY? IF ONLY CHOSEN
> COMMENTS, WHO'S DOING THE CHOOSING? HOW WILL THIS WORK PLAN DEAL WITH
> COMMENTS THAT DID NOT PROPOSE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE TO IMPLEMENT
> CONCERNS/CHANGES FROM THOSE COMMENTS?] ​
> to the draft Bylaws to the community and ICANN Board, 48 hours before the
> Board's vote.
>

​[WHAT IS THE COMMUNITY SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THIS SUMMARY IN 48 HOURS? WILL
THE BYLAWS COORDINATION GROUP OR ANY OTHER SPECIFIC COMMUNITY​

​GROUP HAVE A ROLE IN RESPONDING TO AND/OR APPROVING PROPOSED CHANGES?]​

>
>         Sidley and Adler law firms have already suggested proposed changes
> to the draft bylaws based on the CCWG on Accountability      public
> comments.   ICANN staff are now compiling a summary of all the public
> comments, and then that can be reviewed
> ​[BY WHOM?] ​
> with       respect to possible amendments
> ​ [WHO WILL DECIDE WHICH COMMENTS GET TURNED INTO POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS? WHO
> WILL TURN COMMENTS INTO POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS?]​
> to the draft bylaws.
>
>
> 26 May at  21:00 UTC - Board will hold an information call to review
> comments received since the Board's meeting in Amsterdam, and consider any
> suggested
> ​[SUGGESTED BY WHOM?] ​
> changes to the draft bylaws
>
>
> 27 May at 13:00 UTC  - Board will hold a formal meeting to vote on the
> Bylaws.
>
>
> If there are any outstanding issues identified
> ​ [BY WHOM?]​
> from the summary of comments and proposed changes to the draft bylaws
> provided on 25 May, then the Bylaws Coordination Group will be convened
> ​[BY WHOM?] ​
> to get guidance.
>
> I will separately send this to the CCWG on Accountability mailing list.
>
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
> _______________________________________________
> bylaws-coord mailing list
> bylaws-coord at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bylaws-coord/attachments/20160523/76e069b2/attachment-0001.html>