[Internal-cg] bylaws feedback

Subrenat, Jean-Jacques jjs at dyalog.net
Sat Apr 30 06:49:36 UTC 2016


I support the position you advocate: the ICG can/should send a statement. And I'm willing to work with you, Lynn and others on that.

Best regards,

----- Mail original -----
De: "Patrik Fältström" <paf at frobbit.se>
À: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at LStAmour.org>
Cc: "Milton L Mueller" <milton at gatech.edu>, "IANA etc etcCoordination Group" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Envoyé: Samedi 30 Avril 2016 08:26:21
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback

FWIW, I personally would support such an initiative.


On 29 Apr 2016, at 19:55, Lynn St.Amour wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list