[Internal-cg] bylaws feedback

Alissa Cooper alissa at cooperw.in
Fri Apr 29 18:59:46 UTC 2016

For folks following this issue, it is definitely worth reading the transcript or listening to the recording of the last CCWG call: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58730392 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58730392>

The more that I have thought about this, it has become clear to me that the core issue here is that there is a portion of bylaws section 1.1(d) that is not called for either by our proposal or by the CCWG proposal, as Lynn says. Had the content of 1.1(d)(ii)(B-E) been discussed as part of the transition proposal development, I think the concerns being raised now would have been raised then, and the whole community would have had time to sort them out. (I note that there was an extended discussion about RA/RAA agreements in the CCWG and that did result in text in its proposal in paragraph 147, which is reflected in 1.1(d)(ii)(A). But that does not extend to any other agreements.) Sections 1.1(d)(ii)(B-E) seem to have been created out of whole cloth by the bylaws drafting team, and that was not within their remit in my opinion. The Bylaws are just supposed to implement the proposals.

I think there are substantive issues too, but from an ICG perspective we may or may not want to focus on those. 

I would support sending a comment. We sent a message early on during the bylaws drafting and received no response, and the call to discuss this didn’t even occur until after the bylaws were put out for public comment.


> On Apr 29, 2016, at 11:17 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160429/f956d4eb/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list