[registrars] FW: Draft of bylaw changes from Registrar discsusion/with additional "d"
hi, find attached an email from marilyn with a proposed modification to the by-laws from their perspective bhavin _____ From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 4:45 AM Subject: Draft of bylaw changes from Registrar discsusion/with additional "d" Dear colleagues I have been talking to some of you regarding how best to establish some further safeguards in the ICANN bylaws that can further ensure adherence to the transparency requirement, and prevent "contracting away" that very essential and fundamental principle. I am aware that the Registrars Constiutency is considering some changes, and I have drafted a possible addition to that document for your consideration. It is inserted as "d" in the attachment above. I would welcome any comments on the overall concept of bylaw changes. I have included Bruce as an elected Registrar rep, not in his official role as Chair of the Council. I've included others who are interested and to whom I've spoken. I have also emailed some other councilors regarding just the section I had drafted for their feedback. I am aware that there is at least some board support for this approach because I've emailed three board members personally about "d". I am very flexible on how to proceed. If the Registrars Constituency Reps, or the constituency chair want to post their bylaw modification to the Council and request a formal agenda item and a vote to support the bylaw modification, I would post a friendly amendment and support your other changes as an individual councilor. Note: it is not necessary to have that approach. And it isn't necessary to have a "resolution". It could also be merely a "supporting vote" for forwarding the proposed bylaw change to the Board. Remember this isn't consensus policy per se,but we have taken votes in the past on "advice to the Board". The Registrars Constituency could also just seek support from other constiuencies and forward directly to the Board. I think it is stronger if it is more broadly supported. And I can speak for myself as someone who was greatly troubled by the harm that has been done to the role of consensus policy by the approach that the staff/board took in the .net contract -- consensus policy is a fundamental safequard and something that underpins the policy development entire legitimacy. Before it is contracted away in any way -- however minor it appears to the staff, and thus the board-- there must be consultation with the relevant Council. However, I want to note for everyone's attention that it is important to get this topic scheduled and posted 7 days before a Council meeting. And if we are going to ask for a supporting vote, we need to state that in the item posted to Council. We could note that councilors will be asked to vote in their individual capacity to support sending the bylaw changes to the Board, with the support of the Council. perhaps we can have a discussion on this email list of what the best way is to get a vote accomplished. I would expect support from most constituencies, given how the vote for the Consensus policy turned out, but still, we have to adhere to giving sufficient notice for Councilors. I plan to post two agenda items on Tuesday a.m. to "AOB" under the council agenda. Just suggesting that everyone needs to be mindful of that deadline. Attachment:
ICANNBylawsARTICLESIIIandXV + MSC add.doc |