<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [registrars] FW: Proposed Bylaws Amendment</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Thanks Marcus. If my note doesn't help move the process along, we should issue an agreed-upon statement. Best, Jon<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Marcus Faure [<A HREF="mailto:faure@globvill.de">mailto:faure@globvill.de</A>]<BR>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 06:22 AM Eastern Standard Time<BR>
To: Nevett, Jonathon<BR>
Cc: Registrars Constituency<BR>
Subject: Re: [registrars] FW: Proposed Bylaws Amendment<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Hi Jon,<BR>
<BR>
as far as I remember there was large support in the rc for the bylaw<BR>
changes. If there has not been a formal vote, I suggest starting a<BR>
ballot so you can approach the Board as constituency chair instead of<BR>
NSI rep.<BR>
<BR>
Yours,<BR>
Marcus<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> The following note has been posted to the GNSO list and the Board list.<BR>
> Thanks. Jon<BR>
><BR>
> <BR>
><BR>
> One year ago today, the GNSO passed a resolution recommending that the<BR>
> Board adopt the attached changes to the Bylaws. The recommendations<BR>
> were promptly forwarded to the Board for consideration. The proposed<BR>
> changes make it explicit that contracts that "substantially affect the<BR>
> operation of the Internet or third parties;" and contracts that have "a<BR>
> material impact on a third party member of the Internet Community" would<BR>
> have to be published for public comment prior to execution by ICANN.<BR>
> This does not include every contract that ICANN signs, rather a limited<BR>
> subset of the universe. <BR>
><BR>
> <BR>
><BR>
> Please recall that this request came in response to ICANN's failure to<BR>
> post the final .net registry agreement for public comment prior to its<BR>
> execution. When asked about this occurrence in Luxembourg, the General<BR>
> Counsel stated that he had received advice from outside counsel that<BR>
> there wasn't a requirement that ICANN post the agreement for comment<BR>
> prior to its execution. While many of us disagree with that<BR>
> interpretation, we proposed the attached Bylaws amendment to make it<BR>
> clear that such a requirement does, indeed, exist. <BR>
><BR>
> <BR>
><BR>
> The following is an excerpt from the minutes from the 8/18/05 GNSO<BR>
> meeting:<BR>
><BR>
> <BR>
><BR>
> "John Jeffrey commented from a staff perspective it was understood that<BR>
> the recommendation concerned issues that were raised in Luxembourg and<BR>
> were being presently articulated. Marilyn Cade's proposed change to the<BR>
> language was important and there was also some question regarding<BR>
> whether the scope of the language on which contracts would be included<BR>
> in such process was concise enough. John Jeffrey went on to say that<BR>
> clearly input from the Council was appreciated and that the Board should<BR>
> consider the recommendation but passing on specific language would not<BR>
> be appropriate at this early stage given that the Board would need to<BR>
> consider the input, and any Bylaw change would require a public comment<BR>
> period before it could be approved."<BR>
><BR>
> <BR>
><BR>
> <A HREF="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18aug05.shtml">http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18aug05.shtml</A><BR>
><BR>
> <BR>
><BR>
> Has the Board considered the recommendation in the past year? What has<BR>
> caused the delay? Will the recommendation be sent for public comment? <BR>
><BR>
> <BR>
><BR>
> I urge the GNSO and the Board to take action on this important issue.<BR>
><BR>
> <BR>
><BR>
> Thanks.<BR>
><BR>
> <BR>
><BR>
> Jon Nevett<BR>
><BR>
> Network Solutions<BR>
><BR>
Content-Description: ICANN- bylaw change -ensure transparency.doc<BR>
<BR>
[Attachment, skipping...]<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>