[Internal-cg] bylaws feedback

[Mueller, Milton L]

I sent it yesterday but there has been no response at all. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:54 PM
> To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> Cc: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
> 
> I think that would be fine.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> > On Apr 11, 2016, at 1:04 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > Alissa
> > If you don't mind I will just forward your message to the bylaws and CWG
> lists.
> > If there is some other way you want me to do this, please let me know.
> >
> > --MM
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf
> >> Of Alissa Cooper
> >> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:49 PM
> >> To: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> >> Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
> >>
> >> 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