[NCUC-DISCUSS] DIDP/ Increasing GAC influence?

[Edward Morris]

Hi,

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.

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.

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.

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 6th. 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.

Thanks,

Ed


-----Original Message-----
From: "Edward Morris" <emorris at milk.toast.net>
To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:59:06 -0400
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Increasing GAC influence?

Thanks very much Avri.

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. 

Ed

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:13:15 -0400
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Increasing GAC influence?

hi,

On 19-Aug-14 16:34, Edward Morris wrote:
>
> I agree with Kathy and Milton and others who suggest we need to
> oppose this. I’d also like to ask the PC, at least PC members on
> this NCUC list,  to consider authorizing a DIDP on this. I’m happy to
> do the first draft if there is a desire to go forward. Two reasons to
> do so:
>
> 1. It would be nice to know the dynamics that have led to this
> proposal. Is there resistance on the Board? That would be useful to
> know as we plan our opposition;
>
> 2. We may even get some additional information. Most of the matter
> protected by the DCND doesn’t apply in this case. If staff and Board
> refuse to give us any information on matters concerning a change in
> the Bylaws, the most serious of all issues, it seriously strengthens
> our case that current transparency rules should in no way be confused
> with the FOIA standards suggested in the Thune / Rubio letter. They
> need to be strengthened.


While I do not oppose the change, I do support the DIDP.

avri
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20140825/f492f50d/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: anewdip.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml
Size: 125138 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20140825/f492f50d/attachment-0002.bin>