[NCUC-DISCUSS] DIDP/ Increasing GAC influence?

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Do you mean for this to go the NCSG PC or the NCUC PC?  Or is this meant
to be a NCUC request to the NCSg PC.  Just thinking that if you want
NCSG support (means NCUC + NPOC + individuals) you might want to float a
version on the NCSG list.

I have read it, i am fine with it going ahead once all comments are
dealt with.

avri


On 25-Aug-14 20:14, Edward Morris wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: anewdip+ad140826.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 18236 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20140826/45cf4ffd/attachment-0002.docx>