RE: No current suspensions,,,, was:Re: [ga] Public Comment: Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve Accountability

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric

Nice try!  I am, of course, referring to your term as Chair of the GA -
which has expired.  You should now consult with the GA Secretariat and call
an Election.

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugh Dierker [mailto:hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 03 August 2009 22:06
> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Glen de Saint Géry'; Debbie Garside
> Subject: RE: No current suspensions,,,, was:Re: [ga] Public
> Comment: Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve Accountability
>
> I am looking for the hidden humor.  It escapes me.
> Do we have a BoD CEO?  Is Avri still chair? Answer--All expired.
>
> ----------
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless mobile phone
>
> ------Original Message------
> From: Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "'Hugh Dierker'"
> <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>,<ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,"'Glen de Saint
> Géry'" <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, Aug 3, 3:12 PM +0100
> Subject: RE: No current suspensions,,,, was:Re: [ga] Public
> Comment: Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve Accountability
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> Does this mean that we should start afresh with a new Chair
> too?  As I am sure you are aware, your term has expired.
>
>
>
> Now would be an excellent time to call for an election.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Debbie
>
>
>
>    _____
>
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hugh Dierker
> Sent: 02 August 2009 05:07
> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Glen de Saint Géry
> Subject: Re: No current suspensions,,,, was:Re: [ga] Public Comment:
> Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve Accountability
>
>
>
>
> Dear Glen,
>
>
>
> In light of your notice of this thread. In furtherance and
> keeping with the intent and spirit of ICANN's changes to
> increase Public Comment and create a more inclusive environment:
>
>
>
> The suspension from the GA list of Jeff Williams was actuated
> by a since resigned monitor.
>
> It was contrary to our best rules of procedure.
>
> However it was allowed until this time.
>
>
>
> While our rules have many questionable processes and are
> lacking in broad support, they are in fact the best we have
> since the passage of resolution
> 20070906-2 of the GNSO Council, which was passed at our
> request to self organize.
>
>
>
> As is obvious from the original title of this thread, ICANN
> is dynamic and changing.  In order for there to be an
> effective public comment forum specifically for the GNSO we
> must start fresh with no suspensions.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Eric Hugh Dierker
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 7/29/09, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [ga] Public Comment: Proposed Bylaw Changes to
> Improve Accountability
> To: "ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 1:39 AM
>
>
>
> HYPERLINK
> "http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27jul09-en.htm";
> \nhttp://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27jul09-en.htm
> Public Comment: Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve Accountability
>
> 27 July 2009
> Two proposed accountability measures have been posted by
> direction of the Board for 60 days of public comments, from
> 23 July 2009 through 25 September 2009. This is the latest
> step in the Improving Institutional Confidence process.
>
> The first bylaw revision is a new mechanism called the
> "Community Re-Examination Vote". It would allow the ICANN
> community to request the Board to re-examine a Board decision
> taken by resolution.
>
> The second proposal would revise one of the existing bylaws
> and replace the independent third-party review process with a
> more robust process, the "Independent Review Body".
>
> These proposals represent a significant step forward in
> ICANN's already considerable accountability. The draft bylaw
> changes have been developed in response to community input to
> the President's Strategy Committee over the last 12 months.
>
> You are invited to review the proposed changes to the ICANN
> Bylaws linked to on this page and provide your input to the
> public comments forum.
>
> Details of proposed changes
>
> 1. Community Re-Examination Vote
>
> The ICANN Bylaws currently set forth three mechanisms for
> accountability and review of ICANN Board decisions: (1) the
> Reconsideration Process, Article IV, Section 2; (2) the
> Independent Review Process, Article IV, Section 3; and (3)
> the Office of the Ombudsman, Article V.
>
> The objective is for this procedure to allow the ICANN
> community to come together through the Supporting
> Organizations and Advisory Committees and vote for the Board
> to re-examine a Board decision taken by resolution.
>
> The proposed Bylaws setting forth the Community
> Re-Examination Vote are available here [PDF, 53K].
>
> 2. Independent Review Body
>
> ICANN has an Independent Review Process in place, as
> established at Article IV, Section 3 (1) of the bylaws:
>
> "ICANN shall have in place a separate process for independent
> third-party review of Board actions alleged by an affected
> party to be inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation
> or Bylaws."
>
> The provider for the current Independent Review Process is
> the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR). (More
> detail about the Independent Review Process is available
> here: HYPERLINK
> "http://www.icann.org/en/general/accountability_review.html";
> \nhttp://www.icann.org/en/general/accountability_review.html)
>
> The existing review process is limited in scope, and focuses
> mainly whether the Board has followed ICANN's Articles of
> Incorporation and Bylaws when rendering a decision. The
> current review process relies mainly upon the concepts of
> fidelity and fairness.
>
>
>
> However, following extensive and sustained public input on
> this issue, the PSC recommended a broadening of the review
> process to allow for review of the rationality of Board
> decisions as well.
>
> The proposed changes that would create the Independent Review
> Body would allow reviews of both the rationality and the
> fairness of Board decisions.
> These concepts are described under the rubrics of Fairness,
> Fidelity and Rationality in the May 2009 the staff report
> ("Improving Institutional
> Confidence: The Way Forward" (HYPERLINK
> "http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/iic-the-way-forward-31may09-en.pdf";
> \nhttp://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/iic-the-way-forward-31may09-
> en.pdf [PDF, 112K]).
>
> The proposed amendments to the Bylaws setting forth the IRB
> process are available at HYPERLINK
> "http://www.icann.org/en/general/proposed-bylaw-revisions-iv-3
> -redline-27jul
> 09-en.pdf"
> \nhttp://www.icann.org/en/general/proposed-bylaw-revisions-iv-
> 3-redline-27ju
> l09-en.pdf [PDF, 153K]. Please note: the attached document
> with the proposed bylaw text is presented in 'track changes'
> version to allow you to compare the proposed text to the
> existing text of the bylaws.
>
> ICANN's legal staff expects the procedures and rules for the
> existing Independent Review Process would broadly serve the
> expanded scope of the IRB but that some revisions will be
> required to make them conform fully to the IRB bylaw
> provisions, if adopted.
>
>
>
> Background
>
> The proposed new accountability measures are based on
> recommendations made to the Board by the President's Strategy
> Committee (PSC) in February 2009.
> At the Mexico City meeting in March 2009, the Board directed
> staff to produce implementation analysis of the PSC proposals.
>
> On 31 May 2009, the report "Improving Institutional
> Confidence: The Way Forward" (HYPERLINK
> "http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/iic-the-way-forward-31may09-en.pdf";
> \nhttp://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/iic-the-way-forward-31may09-
> en.pdf) was published for information and discussion ahead of
> the Sydney meeting in June 2009. This report included two
> detailed proposals for implementing the PSC's recommended
> bylaw changes to modify or create accountability and review
> mechanisms.
>
> At the Sydney meeting in June 2009, the Board acknowledged
> this report and directed the opening of a 60-day period of
> public consultation on the proposed bylaw changes.
>
> (For more information about the PSC's work, including
> previous documents and public comment periods, please visit:
> HYPERLINK "http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/";
> \nhttp://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/.
> Information about the PSC itself is at HYPERLINK
> "http://www.icann.org/en/psc"; \nhttp://www.icann.org/en/psc)
>
> Deadline and How to Submit Comments:
>
> Public comments on these proposals will run for 60 days, from
> 27 July 2009 through 25 September 2009.
>
> To submit comments:
>
> Comments are welcome via email to: HYPERLINK
> "http://us.mc529.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=iic-proposed-byl
> aws@xxxxxxxxx"
> \niic-proposed-bylaws@xxxxxxxxx.
>
> To view comments: An archive of all comments received will be
> publicly posted at: HYPERLINK
> "http://forum.icann.org/lists/iic-proposed-bylaws/";
> \nhttp://forum.icann.org/lists/iic-proposed-bylaws/
>
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> HYPERLINK
> "http://us.mc529.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=gnso.secretariat
> @gnso.icannor
> g" \ngnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> HYPERLINK "http://gnso.icann.org/"; \nhttp://gnso.icann.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release
> Date: 15/05/2009
> 06:16
>
>
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release
> Date: 15/05/2009
> 06:16
>
>
>
>
>