Today the BC agreed to share these points about the draft new bylaws, regarding the SSR and WHOIS Affirmation Reviews. These 2 reviews are already late per the Affirmation requirements, and would also be “late" when we add the review requirement to the Bylaws. The BC is not troubled by a new Bylaw that also requires ICANN to begin the next SSR and WHOIS review as soon as possible. -- Draft Bylaws Section 4.6 (c) (v), regarding timing of the Security, Stability, and Resiliency (SSR) review required under the Affirmation of Commitments, which is now to be brought into ICANN bylaws. Text from new Bylaws: "The SSR Review shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years, measured from the date the previous SSR Review Team was convened." BC Comment: The previous SSR review was convened in 2010, so a 5-year interval would require the next review by Oct-2015. Some CCWG members are concerned that the above text creates a new problem since the SSR review would be at least 1 year late at the time the Bylaws are approved. Those concerned are suggesting revisions to the draft Bylaws to avoid a situation where ICANN is immediately failing to honor its new Bylaws. The SSR review is already later than is required under the Affirmation of Commitments, so ICANN is already failing to meet that obligation. We are not troubled by a new Bylaw that also requires ICANN to begin the next SSR review as soon as possible. We prefer that ICANN follow through on the Board-approved 2016 start date for SSR-2 review. We expect SSR-2 to assess ICANN’s implementation of SSR-1, including the extent to which ICANN is prepared to meet future challenges and threats to the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS, consistent with ICANN's limited technical mission. — Draft Bylaws Section 4.6 (e) (v), regarding timing of the Whois/Directory Service review required under the Affirmation of Commitments, which is now to be brought into ICANN bylaws. Text from new Bylaws: "The Directory Service Review shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years, measured from the date the previous Directory Service Review Team was convened.” BC Comment: The previous Whois review was convened in Oct-2010, so a 5-year interval would require the next review by Oct-2015. Some CCWG members are concerned that the above text creates a new problem since the Whois/Directory Service review would be at least 1 year late at the time the Bylaws are approved. Those concerned are suggesting revisions to the draft Bylaws to avoid a situation where ICANN is immediately failing to honor its new Bylaws. The Whois review is already later than is required under the Affirmation of Commitments, so ICANN is already failing to meet that obligation. We are not troubled by a new Bylaw that also requires ICANN to begin the next Whois/Directory Service review as soon as possible. We prefer that ICANN follow through on the Board-approved 2016 start date for Whois-2 review. We expect Whois-2 to assess ICANN’s implementation of Whois-1 and current Whois policy. We recognize that there are policy efforts underway to develop a next generation registration directory service. As repeatedly reinforced by ICANN’s Board, however, the effort to replace Whois complements, and runs in parallel with, ICANN’s obligation to fully enforce existing consensus policy and contractual conditions relating to Whois.