Re: [registrars] FW: Proposed Bylaws Amendment

["Marcus Faure" <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jon,

as far as I remember there was large support in the rc for the bylaw
changes. If there has not been a formal vote, I suggest starting a
ballot so you can approach the Board as constituency chair instead of
NSI rep.

Yours,
Marcus


> 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
> 
Content-Description: ICANN- bylaw change -ensure transparency.doc

[Attachment, skipping...]