[registrars] FW: Draft of bylaw changes from Registrar discsusion/with additional "d"

[Bhavin Turakhia]

hi,
 
find attached an email from marilyn with a proposed modification to the
by-laws from their perspective
 
bhavin

  _____  

From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 4:45 AM
Subject: Draft of bylaw changes from Registrar discsusion/with additional
"d"


Dear colleagues
 
I have been talking to some of you regarding how best to establish some
further safeguards in the ICANN bylaws that can further ensure adherence to
the transparency requirement, and prevent "contracting away" that very
essential and fundamental principle. 
 
I am aware that the Registrars Constiutency is considering some changes, and
I have drafted a possible addition to that document for your consideration.
It is inserted as "d" in the attachment above.
 
I would welcome any comments on the overall concept of bylaw changes. I have
included Bruce as an elected Registrar rep, not in his official role as
Chair of the Council. I've included others who are interested and to whom
I've spoken. I have also emailed some other councilors regarding just the
section I had drafted for their feedback. I am aware that there is at least
some board support for this approach because I've emailed three board
members personally about "d". 
 
I am very flexible on how to proceed. If the Registrars Constituency Reps,
or the constituency chair want to post their bylaw modification to the
Council and request a formal agenda item and a vote to support the bylaw
modification,  I would post a friendly amendment and support your other
changes as an individual councilor.  Note: it is not necessary to have that
approach. And it isn't necessary to have a "resolution". It could also be
merely a "supporting vote" for forwarding the proposed bylaw change to the
Board. Remember this isn't consensus policy per se,but we have taken votes
in the past on "advice to the  Board". 
 
The Registrars Constituency could also just seek support from other
constiuencies and forward directly to the Board. I think it is stronger if
it is more broadly supported. And I can speak for myself as someone who was
greatly troubled by the harm that has been done to the role of consensus
policy by the approach that the staff/board took in the .net contract --
consensus policy is a fundamental safequard and something that underpins the
policy development entire legitimacy. Before it is contracted away in any
way -- however minor it appears to the staff, and thus the board-- there
must be consultation with the relevant Council. 
 
However, I want to note for everyone's attention that it is important to get
this topic scheduled and posted 7 days before a Council meeting. And if we
are going to ask for a supporting vote, we need to state that in the item
posted to Council.  We could note that councilors will be asked to vote in
their individual capacity to support sending the bylaw changes to the Board,
with the support of the Council. perhaps we can have a discussion on this
email list of what the best way is to get a vote accomplished. I would
expect support from most constituencies, given how the vote for the
Consensus policy turned out, but still, we have to adhere to giving
sufficient notice for Councilors.
 
I plan to post two agenda items on Tuesday a.m. to "AOB" under the council
agenda. Just suggesting that everyone needs to be mindful of that deadline. 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registrars/attachments/20050809/7b62012c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICANNBylawsARTICLESIIIandXV + MSC add.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 22528 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registrars/attachments/20050809/7b62012c/ICANNBylawsARTICLESIIIandXVMSCadd.doc>