[Bylaws] (no subject)

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi Timothe,

Some comments in-line below:

On Oct 3, 2013, at 11:20 PM, Timothe Litt <litt at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> A clarification: In today's meeting, I wasn't pushing for a sloppy job.

Of course you weren't. I'm pretty sure nobody thought that was your intent.

> My intent was to discover what the most aggressive possible schedule is.  There is no point in trying to meet an impossible deadline.
> 
> Ed has convinced me that due to the procedural restrictions, this work can not be completed before 2015.  (Vote no sooner than Dec 2014, board approval spring 2015, first election under new rules Dec 2015).
> 
> Given that, we should make reasonable efforts to list and work on the the known issues as quickly as possible.  But we should not favor speed over participation, or set deadlines that require heroic efforts.

Couldn't agree more.

> Based on that, here's a rough stab at a timeline:
> 
> Tell the ICANN staff that we're working on this today.

Absolutely.

> I suggest that we aim for publishing our issues lists/reviews of the current bylaws in the next week.

A preliminary list.

> Work as much as we can on the mailing list; don't wait for another teleconference.  Use teleconferences (a precious resource) for issues, not procedural matters.

Yes…, please.

> The reviews of other bylaws and determining where we can agree should run till mid-November, to allow full participation from those who have signed-up.

Yes again.

> I'm sure the nov/dec holidays will make scheduling difficult - some people will have extra time, others none.
> 
> January is probably a good time to reach out beyond the working group with a strawman proposal (and options for any issues we can't resolve).
> 
> Then target our final report to the EC for mid-feb 14.  This should include preliminary staff feedback.

This timeline seems pretty reasonable to me, however, I would like to suggest a different approach; one which I believe you touched upon during the call.

If we don't determine what the scope of the work we're going to be doing is early in the process and have everyone on the same page in that regard, I'm concerned we will be wasting a lot of time when holding discussions about the substantive contents of the by-laws in the future. I also agree with you in that we should attempt an aggressive schedule, hopefully with iterative deliverables.

What I believe might be a constructive approach would be to see a list of topics listed (as suggested by Tim), which need to be addressed in the new set of by-laws, hopefully by mid-October or the end of third week of the month at the latest. This should ideally be the result of a review of our current by-laws along with the aborted drafts Bill has provided as well as those of other constituencies in the GNSO.

I think a list of problems under each topic at this point would also be helpful. We don't need to debate them in detail right now, but at least identifying and listing issues and possible solutions would be a good thing.

If we can take a draft of these back to the main NCUC list in a timely manner for feedback from the constituency membership asking for comments/opinions/what's missing, we should have what we can consider to be a charter for this WG to be prepped and presented by constituency day in Buenos Aires. Hopefully, this would put not just the volunteers of this WG, but all the NCUC members on the same page regarding what is going to be discussed and hammered out over the next few months.

Then maybe we can have our discussions and a preliminary draft of the new set of by-laws ready by the end of February, followed by a round of feedback from the constituency membership, and amendments as needed all ready for a final draft to be prepared before the Singapore meeting in March.

Staff feedback along every stage will be important to be taken into consideration to avoid delays in the process, and I am in favour of the suggestion to have Rob participate on this list if he is willing and able.

Thanks.

Amr