RE: [registrars] ICANN Bylaws

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ross:

The ICANN Bylaws may be amended by a 2/3rds vote of the Board.  The more
community support we have the better.  Obviously, the GNSO would be a
welcome addition.

Thanks.

Jon 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 12:27 PM
To: Nevett, Jonathon; Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] ICANN Bylaws

What is the proposed mechanism for making these changes? We may need
more than just GNSO support.

-----Original Message-----
    From: "Nevett, Jonathon"<jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    Sent: 01/08/05 12:03:51 PM
    To: "Bruce Tonkin"<Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Registrars
Constituency"<registrars@xxxxxxxx>
    Subject: RE: [registrars] ICANN Bylaws
      Bruce/Ross/Tom:  Would you seek GNSO support for these changes to
the
    ICANN Bylaws?  Thanks.  Jon
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
    Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 2:43 AM
    To: Registrars Constituency
    Subject: RE: [registrars] ICANN Bylaws
    
     
    Hello Jon,
    
    > Attached is a redline of changes to two sections of the ICANN
Bylaws
    that Network 
    > Solutions is pursuing with the ICANN Board to address the breach
of
    trust 
    > surrounding the .net contract approval process.  Any support would
be
    appreciated.
     
    I support the proposed changes.
     
    In addition you may want to add some language that requires ICANN to
    explain the reasons for changes to standard form agreements such as
the
    Registrars Accreditation Agreement (RAA), and the ICANN registry
    agreements.   Changes to these standard agreements affects many
    contracts into the future.
     
    What has happened recently is that the standard registry agreement
that
    has been signed by new operators (e.g .jobs, .travel) as well as
.net,
    has been changed.   Most of us did not realize that the agreements
being
    signed by the new sponsored gtld operators had changed from the
    agreements previously signed by operators such as .museum, .biz etc.
I
    believe that the proposed sponsored agreements had been posted, but
none
    of us (that I know of) knew of the significant changes.  I would
have
    assumed that they would have signed the same standard agreement as
.biz,
    .museum etc, with some appendices that were customised for the
    particular TLD.
     
     
    e.g replace:
    "1. With respect to any policies or contracts that are being
considered
    by the Board for adoption or approval that substantially affect the
    operation of the Internet or third parties, including the imposition
of
    any fees or charges, ICANN shall:
    
    a. provide public notice on the Website explaining what policies or
    contracts are being considered for adoption or approval and why, at
    least twenty-one days (and if practical, earlier) prior to any
action by
    the Board; "
    
    With
    "1. With respect to any policies or contracts that are being
considered
    by the Board for adoption or approval that substantially affect the
    operation of the Internet or third parties, including the imposition
of
    any fees or charges, ICANN shall:
    
    a. provide public notice on the Website explaining what policies or
    contracts are being considered for adoption or approval and why
    (including an explanation of the reasons for any changes to the
standard
    terms of contracts such as registry or registrar agreements), at
least
    twenty-one days (and if practical, earlier) prior to any action by
the
    Board; "
    
    I have added the text "(including an explanation of the reasons for
any
    changes to the standard terms of contracts such as registry or
registrar
    agreements)".
    
    
    Regards,
    Bruce Tonkin