[registrars] FW: Proposed Bylaws Amendment

[Nevett, Jonathon]

The following note has been posted to the GNSO list and the Board list.
Thanks.  Jon

 

One year ago today, the GNSO passed a resolution recommending that the
Board adopt the attached changes to the Bylaws.  The recommendations
were promptly forwarded to the Board for consideration.  The proposed
changes make it explicit that contracts that "substantially affect the
operation of the Internet or third parties;" and contracts that have "a
material impact on a third party member of the Internet Community" would
have to be published for public comment prior to execution by ICANN.
This does not include every contract that ICANN signs, rather a limited
subset of the universe.  

 

Please recall that this request came in response to ICANN's failure to
post the final .net registry agreement for public comment prior to its
execution.  When asked about this occurrence in Luxembourg, the General
Counsel stated that he had received advice from outside counsel that
there wasn't a requirement that ICANN post the agreement for comment
prior to its execution.  While many of us disagree with that
interpretation, we proposed the attached Bylaws amendment to make it
clear that such a requirement does, indeed, exist.  

 

The following is an excerpt from the minutes from the 8/18/05 GNSO
meeting:

 

 "John Jeffrey commented from a staff perspective it was understood that
the recommendation concerned issues that were raised in Luxembourg and
were being presently articulated. Marilyn Cade's proposed change to the
language was important and there was also some question regarding
whether the scope of the language on which contracts would be included
in such process was concise enough.  John Jeffrey went on to say that
clearly input from the Council was appreciated and that the Board should
consider the recommendation but passing on specific language would not
be appropriate at this early stage given that the Board would need to
consider the input, and any Bylaw change would require a public comment
period before it could be approved."

 

http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18aug05.shtml

 

Has the Board considered the recommendation in the past year?  What has
caused the delay?  Will the recommendation be sent for public comment?  

 

I urge the GNSO and the Board to take action on this important issue.

 

Thanks.

 

Jon Nevett

Network Solutions

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registrars/attachments/20060818/7662d833/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICANN- bylaw change -ensure transparency.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 28672 bytes
Desc: ICANN- bylaw change -ensure transparency.doc
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registrars/attachments/20060818/7662d833/ICANN-bylawchange-ensuretransparency.doc>