<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] Bylaws changes and the PDP was RE: Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure
Hi,
Having the lawyers, both ICANN's and those of the contracted parties
discuss this is probably a good idea.
>From a naive non legal perspective, I would expect that while the basic
steps that must be taken as well as the consultations, transparency and
voting thresholds, should be defined in by-laws, things like timing,
methods and possible additional steps (e.g. do we do a research project
and do we do it before or after constituting a WG) could be left to
operating rules or the council.
a.
On Sun, 2009-04-05 at 10:22 -0400, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> I suggest that we do our own legal analysis like we did with the two
> versions of the DAG to identify exactly what issues must stay in the
> Bylaws and develop our rationale for that so that we can either demand
> that those stay in the Bylaws or insist on mitigating language. I am
> sure that Jonathan Spencer will participate on our part. Should we
> arrange a conference call of RyC attorneys? Jeff - do you want to do
> that?
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 9:13 AM
> > To: avri@xxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck
> > Subject: RE: [liaison6c] Re: [council] Draft Revisions to the
> > ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure
> >
> > All,
> >
> > My biggest issues, which I have explained to staff and my
> > constituency surrounds taking elements out of the Bylaws and
> > putting them into an Operating Rules document as has been
> > implied by many councilors as well as by staff. I understand
> > the view that it MAY provide for some flexibility, but taking
> > any elements of the PDP out of the bylaws has implications on
> > the contracted parties which MUST be fully considered by the
> > legal staffs on the registries/registrars and ICANN prior to
> > taking any such actions since our agreements refer to the
> > Bylaws for the policy process.
> >
> > Perhaps more importantly, by taking elements out of the
> > Bylaws, you are essentially removing those elements from the
> > Independent Review Process. The IRP is only for cases in
> > which the Bylaws are violated. If the elements are not in
> > the Bylaws, there is no review and hence NO ACCOUNTABILITY.
> > As we have seen in the XXX IRP, the ICANN staff considers the
> > IRP to be extremely narrow (Too narrow in my opinion).
> > Nonetheless, I for one do not want to take things out of the
> > Bylaws without a commitment hardcoded in writing that
> > removing them from the Bylaws would not remove them from the
> > IRP in cases of any violations by the ICANN.
> >
> > I cannot post to the Council list, but believe these points
> > should be made clear to all of the Council members.
> >
> > Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.: NeuStar, Inc.
> > Vice President, Law & Policy
> >
> >
> > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended
> > only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may
> > contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you
> > are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail
> > message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution,
> > or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
> > have received this communication in error, please notify us
> > immediately and delete the original message.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|