[NCUC-DISCUSS] DIDP/ Increasing GAC influence?

[Edward Morris]

Hi Avri,

Thanks for catching this. I actually hadn't noticed this thread was on the Constituency list 
rather than the SG list. It was my hope, as I'm sure you surmised, that this could go to the 
NCSG PC, although I'm perfectly happy for the NCUC PC to consider and submit  if it 
suddenly woke up from dormancy.  I'll follow your advice and submit to the SG list with a new 
cover. Sorry in advance to everyone for the cross posting.

Thanks as well, Avri, for your support. Fingers crossed that this might be the first DIDP in 
recent history to actually generate the release of documents.

Ed 
-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:43:56 -0400
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] DIDP/ Increasing GAC influence?

> 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
> >