[Internal-cg] bylaws feedback

[Mueller, Milton L]

I support what you are saying. I take it you are not satisfied with the lawyers' explanation? I was not able to attend the 0:400 call a few days ago so was not able to question them about it or hear their answers.

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lynn St.Amour [mailto:Lynn at LStAmour.org]
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 1:55 PM
> To: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>; Mueller, Milton L
> <milton at gatech.edu>; IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-
> cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
> 
> Hi Alissa, Milton, all,
> 
> I would like to come back to this subject.  Specifically, I would like to propose
> that the ICG send in a statement to the By-laws comment period.
> 
> Alissa commented on a specific concern (see thread below) and I also believe
> the ICG should be concerned about the overreach in the draft bylaws.
> 
> My main concerns are:
> 
> - the fact that these draft by-laws, through the grand-fathering provisions,
> allow external agreements to define ICANN's Mission which seems like a bad
> idea for many reasons.  Further, this contradicts the desires of the community
> (or is a run around the community - intentional or not) who worked hard to
> clarify and correctly state ICANN’s mission throughout the IANA Transition
> process (paragraphs 140-144 of the CCWG-Accountability proposal).
> 
> - the ICG process was fashioned to ensure that the transition plans reflected
> the consensus of the Internet community.  And, it was to respect the roles and
> responsibilities of the OCs in defining their own transition plans.  The ICG and
> the CCWG reports define those wishes, and any changes to the bylaws were to
> be to implement those wishes, nothing more.  Yet provisions in sections
> 1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(D) are outside the scope of both the ICG and the CCWG-
> Accountability proposals, and so there has not been appropriate community
> involvement or review for those changes.   Note: these sections affect much
> of the Internet community, as they apply to agreements between ICANN and
> the ASO, NRO, IETF, Root Zone Maintainer, and PTI.
> 
> For transparency: the IAB/IETF are also concerned about the overreach and
> are drafting their own comments, and as an IAB appointee to the ICG, I am
> part of that review as well.
> 
> If there is support for the ICG sending in a comment, I would be happy to work
> with Alissa and others to draft something for ICG review.
> 
> Regards,
> Lynn
> 
> 
> > On Apr 12, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >>