[registrars] FW: Proposed Bylaws Amendment
The following note has been posted to the GNSO list and the Board list. Thanks. Jon One year ago today, the GNSO passed a resolution recommending that the Board adopt the attached changes to the Bylaws. The recommendations were promptly forwarded to the Board for consideration. The proposed changes make it explicit that contracts that "substantially affect the operation of the Internet or third parties;" and contracts that have "a material impact on a third party member of the Internet Community" would have to be published for public comment prior to execution by ICANN. This does not include every contract that ICANN signs, rather a limited subset of the universe. Please recall that this request came in response to ICANN's failure to post the final .net registry agreement for public comment prior to its execution. When asked about this occurrence in Luxembourg, the General Counsel stated that he had received advice from outside counsel that there wasn't a requirement that ICANN post the agreement for comment prior to its execution. While many of us disagree with that interpretation, we proposed the attached Bylaws amendment to make it clear that such a requirement does, indeed, exist. The following is an excerpt from the minutes from the 8/18/05 GNSO meeting: "John Jeffrey commented from a staff perspective it was understood that the recommendation concerned issues that were raised in Luxembourg and were being presently articulated. Marilyn Cade's proposed change to the language was important and there was also some question regarding whether the scope of the language on which contracts would be included in such process was concise enough. John Jeffrey went on to say that clearly input from the Council was appreciated and that the Board should consider the recommendation but passing on specific language would not be appropriate at this early stage given that the Board would need to consider the input, and any Bylaw change would require a public comment period before it could be approved." http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18aug05.shtml Has the Board considered the recommendation in the past year? What has caused the delay? Will the recommendation be sent for public comment? I urge the GNSO and the Board to take action on this important issue. Thanks. Jon Nevett Network Solutions Attachment:
ICANN- bylaw change -ensure transparency.doc
|