<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [registrars] FW: Proposed Bylaws Amendment
- To: "Marcus Faure" <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [registrars] FW: Proposed Bylaws Amendment
- From: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 07:03:43 -0400
- Cc: "Registrars Constituency" <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcbFC6QcSIB4JyGJSLyk9cXW1wWAEwABuwoI
- Thread-topic: [registrars] FW: Proposed Bylaws Amendment
Thanks Marcus. If my note doesn't help move the process along, we should issue an agreed-upon statement. Best, Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: Marcus Faure [mailto:faure@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 06:22 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: Nevett, Jonathon
Cc: Registrars Constituency
Subject: Re: [registrars] FW: Proposed Bylaws Amendment
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...]
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|