[Internal-cg] bylaws feedback

Alissa Cooper alissa at cooperw.in
Fri May 13 23:21:04 UTC 2016


Sent. https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/msg00006.html <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/msg00006.html>

Thanks all.

Alissa


> On May 13, 2016, at 12:29 AM, Narelle Clark <narelle.clark at accan.org.au> wrote:
> 
> This message looks ready to send.
> 
> As they say "ship it".
> 
> 
> Narelle Clark
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
>> Sent: Thursday, 12 May 2016 5:11 AM
>> To: Kavouss Arasteh
>> Cc: Narelle Clark; IANA etc etcCoordination Group; Milton L Mueller; Lynn
>> St.Amour
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>> 
>> I’d like us to close out on this. If anyone objects to us submitting the text
>> below as a public comment on the draft bylaws, please say so by Friday,
>> May 13 at 23:59. If there are no objections, I’ll submit it.
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> The ICG appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft ICANN
>> Bylaws.
>> 
>> The ICG previously communicated concerns about Section 1.1(d)(ii) to the
>> Bylaws drafting group [1]. However, these concerns were not addressed in
>> the draft Bylaws that were posted for public comment.
>> 
>> Section 1.1(d) "grandfathers" a number of agreements into the Bylaws in
>> order to prevent parties from challenging those agreements on the basis
>> that they violate the ICANN Mission statement. Under Section 1.1(d)(ii), (A)
>> applies to RA/RAA agreements; (B)-(D) apply to agreements between ICANN
>> and the NRO, ASO, IETF, RZM, and PTI; and (E) applies to ICANN's Five-Year
>> Strategic Plan and Five-Year Operating Plan. (F) applies the grandfathering
>> to renewals of the agreements appearing in (B)-(E).
>> 
>> The ICG process was fashioned to ensure that the transition plans reflected
>> the consensus of the Internet community and allowed the operational
>> communities to define their own transition plans. The ICG and the CCWG
>> proposals define those wishes, and any changes to the Bylaws were to be to
>> implement those wishes, nothing more.  Yet Sections 1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(E) are
>> outside the scope of both the ICG and the CCWG proposals. Unlike Section
>> 1.1(d)(ii)(A), the substance of which was debated in the CCWG and is
>> documented in paragraph 147 of the CCWG proposal, the substance of (B)-
>> (E) have not enjoyed appropriate community involvement or review. These
>> sections affect much of the Internet community since they apply to
>> agreements with a variety of external parties, including all of the
>> operational communities.
>> 
>> Because several of the referenced agreements have not yet been written
>> and most have not yet been agreed to by the relevant parties, the draft
>> Bylaws essentially allow these external agreements to define ICANN's
>> Mission. This seems like a bad idea for many reasons, not the least of which
>> is that it creates the possibility for the agreements to contradict or
>> circumvent the desires of the community who worked hard to clarify and
>> correctly state ICANN’s Mission throughout the IANA stewardship
>> transition process (see paragraphs 140-147 of the CCWG proposal).
>> 
>> The ICG believes that in order for the Bylaws to be considered consistent
>> with the transition plans, Sections 1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(E) need to be removed, and
>> Section 1.1(d)(ii)(F) needs to be edited to apply only to Section 1.1(d)(ii)(A).
>> This assumes that (F) is indeed called for by paragraph 147 of the CCWG
>> proposal, which we leave for the CCWG to judge.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 6, 2016, at 2:59 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
>> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Jean Jaques
>>> Tks
>>> This is what I and you pushed since long time but have not yet been
>>> heard Kavousd
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>> On 5 May 2016, at 09:43, Narelle Clark <narelle.clark at accan.org.au>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Jean-Jacques has the rationale exactly.
>>>> 
>>>> +1
>>>> 
>>>> Narelle
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf
>>>>> Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, 4 May 2016 4:28 PM
>>>>> To: Martin Boyle
>>>>> Cc: Lynn St.Amour; Milton L Mueller; IANA etc etcCoordination Group
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hello Alissa & All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I support the draft as it now stands, in order to
>>>>> - warn against any initiative or mechanism which would endanger the
>>>>> Transition proposal before it has even been thoroughly vetted in
>>>>> Washington,
>>>>> - underline the risk of the ICANN Mission being susceptible to
>>>>> modification by external texts or undertakings, some of which are
>>>>> not yet in existence,
>>>>> - demand the withdrawal of Sections 1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(E), and the
>>>>> modification of Section 1.1(d)(ii)(F) so as to apply only to Section
>> 1.1(d)(ii)(A).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Jean-Jacques.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>>> De: "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk>
>>>>> À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller"
>>>>> <milton at gatech.edu>
>>>>> Cc: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at LStAmour.org>, "IANA etc
>> etcCoordination
>>>>> Group" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 4 Mai 2016 00:15:40
>>>>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Alissa, all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I agree with you, Alissa. This sort of detail does seem to me to go
>>>>> well beyond the remit of the ICG and we should certainly not be
>>>>> seeking to upset areas already agreed in the CCWG-Accountability
>> process.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> For the rest of this, I am afraid I have not been following the CCWG
>>>>> process carefully enough to have a view of where the text bylaw
>>>>> drafting goes beyond the consensus of the proposal. I’ll try to look
>>>>> at it tomorrow, but on my cursory reading of the arguments below,
>>>>> this does look like a legitimate input from the ICG.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hope this helps
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Martin
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf
>>>>> Of Alissa Cooper
>>>>> Sent: 03 May 2016 22:10
>>>>> To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>>>>> Cc: Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at LStAmour.org>; IANA etc etcCoordination
>>>>> Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don’t have an opinion about the substance of the RA/RAA renewals,
>>>>> but I don’t think they are within the scope of what the ICG should
>> comment on.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The renewal of RA and RAA agreements were discussed on today’s
>> CCWG
>>>>> call (as well as on several previous CCWG calls and the CCWG mailing
>>>>> list). It appears that the CCWG will be commenting on these renewals
>>>>> in its own comments about the Bylaws, and will be supporting the
>>>>> existing language in
>>>>> (F) as it applies to the RA and RAA agreements. Considering that the
>>>>> CCWG appears to have discussed this topic at great length and has
>>>>> consensus on it, I don’t think the same argument we are making about
>>>>> (B)-(E) applies to the RA/RAA renewals.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The CCWG is planning to submit its comments by May 10, so there
>>>>> should be more clarity about exactly what they intend to say soon.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Alissa
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On May 3, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Mueller, Milton L < milton at gatech.edu >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> (F) applies the grandfathering to renewals of the agreements
>>>>> appearing in (B)-(D).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> MM: not correct: (F) applies the grandfathering to renewals of A –
>>>>> D. It
>>>>> reads:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> “(F) any renewals of agreements described in subsections (A)-(D)
>>>>> pursuant to their terms and conditions for renewal.”
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> As I said in my initial comment, renewals of RA and RAA agreements
>>>>> are the most susceptible to bypassing mission limitations, because
>>>>> ICANN has the most expansive powers over names and the names
>>>>> community, unlike numbers and protocols, has not created a viable
>>>>> mechanism for changing the IFO.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Picture this scenario: ICANN adds a highly regulatory requirement to
>>>>> the .com contract renewal; requiring it to pre-screen content in all
>>>>> .com second- level registrations. We might say, “this obviously
>>>>> violates the prohibition of content regulation in the mission
>>>>> statement,” but ICANN legal replies: “oh no, this is a renewal of
>>>>> the com agreement and therefore it is exempt from any such
>> challenge.”
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> If someone can show me that I am wrong legally about this
>>>>> possibility I’d be happy to drop it. But I haven’t seen any
>>>>> convincing arguments as to how this would not be possible.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Therefore it would be extremely difficult for me to sign on to this
>>>>> statement if it does not mention the RA/RAA renewals problem and I
>>>>> frankly think we’d be missing the boat in a big way.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --MM
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The ICG process was fashioned to ensure that the transition plans
>>>>> reflected the consensus of the Internet community and allowed the
>>>>> operational communities to define their own transition plans. The
>>>>> ICG and the CCWG proposals define those wishes, and any changes to
>>>>> the Bylaws were to be to implement those wishes, nothing more. Yet
>>>>> Sections 1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(E) are outside the scope of both the ICG and
>>>>> the CCWG proposals. Unlike Section 1.1(d)(ii)(A), the substance of
>>>>> which was debated in the CCWG and is documented in paragraph 147
>> of
>>>>> the CCWG proposal, the substance of (B)-
>>>>> (E) have not enjoyed appropriate community involvement or review.
>>>>> These sections affect much of the Internet community since they
>>>>> apply to agreements with a variety of external parties, including
>>>>> all of the operational communities.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Because several of the referenced agreements have not yet been
>>>>> written and most have not yet been agreed to by the relevant
>>>>> parties, the draft Bylaws essentially allow these external
>>>>> agreements to define ICANN's Mission. This seems like a bad idea for
>>>>> many reasons, not the least of which is that it creates the
>>>>> possibility for the agreements to contradict or circumvent the
>>>>> desires of the community who worked hard to clarify and correctly
>>>>> state ICANN’s Mission throughout the IANA stewardship transition
>> process (see paragraphs 140-147 of the CCWG proposal).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The ICG believes that in order for the Bylaws to be considered
>>>>> consistent with the transition plans, Sections 1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(E)
>>>>> need to be removed, and Section 1.1(d)(ii)(F) needs to be edited to
>> apply only to Section 1.1(d)(ii)(A).
>>>>> This assumes that (F) is indeed called for by paragraph 147 of the
>>>>> CCWG proposal, which we leave for the CCWG to judge.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> [1] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2016-
>>>>> April/004877.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 30, 2016, at 8:16 AM, Mueller, Milton L < milton at gatech.edu >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ok, I have had time to read the transcript. I am even more strongly
>>>>> committed to developing a comment as ICG.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Alissa said on the call that 1.1.d.(ii) “creates a giant loophole
>>>>> that allows all of the work that was done to more precisely define
>>>>> the mission statement of ICANN in these bylaws ...to be completely
>>>>> contravened by whatever gets written into the ICANN PTI contract
>>>>> Because what this is says is that no one in the future will ever be
>>>>> able to challenge that contract on the basis that it contravenes the
>> mission.”
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> [and, I might add, the RZM contract, and renewals of registry
>> contracts].
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The only answer I saw to this was that we don’t need to worry about
>>>>> it because the PTI contract will be put up for public comment.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Alissa also made the point:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> "this memo ... seems to imply that ... the most important thing out
>>>>> of all of this is that ICANN can continue to perform the IANA
>>>>> function. And I think what we all learned in (unintelligible) in
>>>>> terms of what the ICG proposal says is that in fact that is not the
>>>>> most important thing. The most important thing is that the IANA
>>>>> functions can continue to be performed by some operator who’s
>>>>> capable of performing them according to the service level agreements
>>>>> that the community ...has. And those two things are not the same.
>>>>> And I certainly –I will put my IETF hat on here for a second and say
>>>>> that I think from an IETF perspective the important thing is that a
>>>>> protocol parameters functions can continue to be performed, not that
>> they can only continue to be performed by ICANN."
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't think this argument of Alissa was ever answered. It seems
>>>>> like there could be ways of drafting these sections that do not
>>>>> commit us to a specific contract but makes it clear that performance
>>>>> of the IANA functions is not challengable as a mission violation so
>>>>> long as the community actually wants ICANN to perform those
>> functions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Indeed, I am having trouble understanding the threat that these
>>>>> sections are supposed to avoid.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> However, the most dangerous mission-limitation-busting potential is
>>>>> in the renewals section (F). This is problematic partly because the
>>>>> CCWG never agreed to exempt renewals. We agreed to grandfather
>>>>> existing agreements, for the sake of stability. But the assumption
>>>>> was that if anything in these existing agreements contravened the
>>>>> new mission limitations, that they COULD be challenged during a
>>>>> renewal process. A contract renewal with a registry could include
>>>>> all kinds of regulatory measures that exceed the mission, and if
>>>>> these measures are framed as a "renewal of an existing agreement"
>> then ICANN could in principle get away with anything.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> So I hope we are able to make it clear to ICANN and the CCWG that
>>>>> these provisions need to be changed..
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [ mailto:alissa at cooperw.in ]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 3:00 PM
>>>>> To: Mueller, Milton L < milton at gatech.edu >
>>>>> Cc: Lynn St.Amour < Lynn at LStAmour.org >; IANA etc etcCoordination
>>>>> Group < internal-cg at ianacg.org >
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Alissa
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>> 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
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160513/6926908e/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list