[NCUC-EC] ICANN staff comments on the bylaws

[hfaiedh ines]

Hi all
As far as I understood from our meeting with Rob at the intersessional,
these comments aren't binding. So I would second Farzaneh in going step by
step and see how we can answer this.

2017-02-18 14:34 GMT-05:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>:

> The process is ICANN staff review and make suggestions.  We dont even have
> to consider these suggestions. But it's better to understand them and give
> a reason why we do not accept some of the comments. As to the nature of
> suggestions, there is not much of a mandate . They just provide comments
> including editorial and substative. I suggest doing this:we see which
> editorial suggestions we can accept, we point out to the comments that we
> cannot accept and we give our reasons why. Then we have a meeting with
> staff and tell them. Then send to Board. Remember that this will go to
> board. It makes it much easier when we provide reason why we don't accept
> the staff suggestions.
>
> There is an alternative which is a bit extreme. We can just adopt the
> bylaws. Board will look at them though and might tell us not to adopt
> before changing it. But I don't feel extreme today.
>
> On 18 Feb 2017 13:19, "Tatiana Tropina" <tatiana.tropina at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Farzaneh and all.
>> I don't think we should agree to get the meeting where the comments are
>> "explained" to us. While am in general very cooperative, I think accepting
>> the offer to "explain" why someone would unilaterally rewrite our mission
>> and the membership rules is already too much. We have to send it back with
>> the note that the staff was supposed to do copy-editing of the text for the
>> purpose of consistency, not rewriting the provisions that constituency came
>> up with.
>> Farzy and I are involved in the AC/SO accountability WS2 and I was
>> working on membership data capture there. Yes!!! - other constituencies
>> (BC, IPC) *do* *have* membership, eligibility criteria and process of
>> becoming a member. Another argument why we shall not accept the document
>> and just send it back with a polite note that ICANN consultant overstepped
>> the mandate with regard to what can be edited.
>> Warm regards
>> Tanya
>>
>>
>> On 18 February 2017 at 04:37, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> EC,
>>>
>>> Please find attached ICANN staff comments on NCUC bylaws. I will arrange
>>> a meeting with Rob and staff but before doing that we need to go through
>>> the comments. We can do that within two weeks and then have a meeting with
>>> him and staff to explain the comments to us. Then we will discuss with Rob
>>> and staff and then discuss with our members, finalize and ask Rob to send
>>> it to Board.
>>>
>>>
>>> Farzaneh
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCUC-EC mailing list
>>> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> NCUC-EC mailing list
> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20170220/a6e0a7d9/attachment.html>