[Internal-cg] bylaws feedback

Alissa Cooper alissa at cooperw.in
Tue Apr 12 19:15:28 UTC 2016

From the minutes it looks like this was discussed on the CCWG call and there will be follow-up.

> On Apr 12, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
> 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

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list