<html><body>
<div style="font-size: 13px; font-family: tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image: none;
background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: padding-box;
background-clip: border-box; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);
background-size: auto; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: repeat
repeat;">
<div>Hi,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Attached please find an initial draft of a DIDP that I earlier in the
week proposed we file in response to the Bylaws change proposed by the BGRI.
You’ll recall it was suggested that the Bylaws be changed in a way
that would increase the threshold for the Board rejection of GAC advice to
2/3 from the simple majority currently required.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The more I worked on this the greater my belief became that a DIDP
could be useful here. Staff usually deny information requests citing
the Defined Conditions for Nondisclosure (DCND). As illustrated in the
Request, DCND exceptions do not apply here. We should be able to get some
information to help explain why this Bylaws change is being proposed and why
it is being proposed now. If our Request is denied it will just serve as
further proof of the opaque nature of ICANN’s decision-making
process.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I note that the Board has already agreed to adopt the 2/3 threshold
while awaiting receipt of the public comments required before any Bylaws
change. Let me rephrase that: the Board has agreed to ignore its current
Bylaws by pretending they have been changed before they have been. Not only
is that of questionable legality it is a complete affront to the bottom up
nature of the public comments process. Further reason we should make an
attempt to discover what exactly is going on here.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I would ask that those members of the PC reading this to please take a
look at the attached document, make changes as necessary and decide whether
or not to proceed with this attempt. Time is of the essence. ICANN has 30
days to respond to this DIDP Request once filed and the Reply Period for the
proposed Bylaws change ends on October 6<sup>th</sup>. It would be nice to
get a response from ICANN prior to the close of the Reply Period so we as a
community and as individuals can comment on the basis of what we receive, if
anything.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ed</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13px;
font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image: none;
background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: padding-box;
background-clip: border-box; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);
background-size: auto; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: repeat
repeat;">
<blockquote style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">-----Original
Message-----<br />
From: "Edward Morris" <emorris@milk.toast.net><br />
To: ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org<br />
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:59:06 -0400<br />
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Increasing GAC influence?<br />
<div style="font-size: 13px; font-family: tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image: none;
background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: padding-box;
background-clip: border-box; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);
background-size: auto; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: repeat
repeat;">Thanks very much Avri.</div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; font-family: tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image: none;
background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: padding-box;
background-clip: border-box; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);
background-size: auto; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: repeat
repeat;"> </div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; font-family: tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image: none;
background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: padding-box;
background-clip: border-box; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);
background-size: auto; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: repeat
repeat;">I will get started on writing the first DIDP draft, in the hope
others will join in support. I'm on the road the next few days, but
certainly should have something ready by the end of the weekend. </div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; font-family: tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image: none;
background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: padding-box;
background-clip: border-box; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);
background-size: auto; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: repeat
repeat;"> </div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; font-family: tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image: none;
background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: padding-box;
background-clip: border-box; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);
background-size: auto; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: repeat
repeat;">Ed</div>
<div style="font-family: tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13px;
font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image: none;
background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: padding-box;
background-clip: border-box; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);
background-size: auto; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: repeat
repeat;">
<blockquote style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">-----Original
Message-----<br />
From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org><br />
To: ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org<br />
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:13:15 -0400<br />
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Increasing GAC influence?<br />
<div style="font-family: monospace, courier new, courier">hi,<br />
<br />
On 19-Aug-14 16:34, Edward Morris wrote:<br />
><br />
> I agree with Kathy and Milton and others who suggest we need to<br />
> oppose this. I’d also like to ask the PC, at least PC members
on<br />
> this NCUC list, to consider authorizing a DIDP on this. I’m
happy to<br />
> do the first draft if there is a desire to go forward. Two reasons
to<br />
> do so:<br />
><br />
> 1. It would be nice to know the dynamics that have led to this<br />
> proposal. Is there resistance on the Board? That would be useful to<br
/>
> know as we plan our opposition;<br />
><br />
> 2. We may even get some additional information. Most of the matter<br />
> protected by the DCND doesn’t apply in this case. If staff and
Board<br />
> refuse to give us any information on matters concerning a change in<br
/>
> the Bylaws, the most serious of all issues, it seriously strengthens<br
/>
> our case that current transparency rules should in no way be
confused<br />
> with the FOIA standards suggested in the Thune / Rubio letter. They<br
/>
> need to be strengthened.<br />
<br />
<br />
While I do not oppose the change, I do support the DIDP.<br />
<br />
avri<br />
_______________________________________________<br />
Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br />
<a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss%40lists.ncuc.org">
Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br />
<a href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss"
target="_blank">
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body></html>