[Internal-cg] bylaws feedback

[Subrenat, Jean-Jacques]

I have the same concerns as Alissa and Joseph.
These parts need to be redrafted, and the attention of the Bylaws drafting group needs to be brought to bear on the faulty method which resulted in such provisions.
Thanks.
Jean-Jacques.







----- Mail original -----
De: "Joseph Alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
À: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Envoyé: Lundi 11 Avril 2016 19:55:52
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback

Apologies for not having had time to get into this at a detail level...  
I agree with Alissa's concern.  Incorporation by reference of a document 
who's terms are yet defined and which may not be drafted till after is 
at least unusual if not problematic...  The name of the entity is leas 
concerning, that can be accommodated, but the substantive terms of the 
document seem to be real the issue if they could impact the credibility 
of and ability to rely on the bylaws for some of the accountability 
functionality.

On 4/11/2016 1:48 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> I have looked a bit at the draft bylaws and I’d like to ask Kavouss and Milton to bring the following issue back to the bylaws drafting group:
>
> Section 1.1(d)(ii) incorporates by reference a number of documents external to the bylaws as a means to prevent challenges on the basis that those documents conflict with or violate the bylaws. In particular, bullet (D) applies this provision to "the IANA Naming Function Contract between ICANN and PTI effective [October 1, 2016]."
>
> Given the ICG's historical encouragement of the community to meet timelines necessary for a successful transition, I find this provision to be extremely problematic. It incorporates a reference to a document that does not exist yet and that is unlikely to be completed by the time the bylaws are supposed to be done (early June). In fact, it is not even clear at this point whether the new ICANN affiliate to be setup will be name "PTI" or have some other name. I don't understand how anyone can reason about whether 1.1(d)(ii) is an acceptable bylaws provision if it references a document that has not been written. (This also applies to (B) and (C) since it could apply to future documents that haven’t been written yet.)
>
> Furthermore, I question whether it is a sound decision to essentially allow for documents external to the bylaws to be able to modify the bylaws (under (F)). This section would make more sense if it was entirely internally specified, without the references to external documents. At a minimum, I think we should recommend that (D) be removed.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org