- comments-bylaws-bgc-31mar17@icann.org

[comments-bylaws-bgc-31mar17] Ratified: ALAC Statement on the Proposed Fundamentals Bylaws Changes to Move the Board Governance Committee's Reconsideration Process Responsibilities to Another Board Committee
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 17, 2017

May 17, 2017

Dear All, Kindly note that the ALAC Statement on the Proposed Fundamentals Bylaws Changes to Move the Board Governance Committee's Reconsideration Process Responsibilities to Another Board Committee has been ratified. Please note the ratification information is in the Staff Introduction section. The content of the Statement is unchanged. Best regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

[comments-bylaws-bgc-31mar17] Business Constituency (BC) comment on Proposed Bylaws Changes regarding Reconsideration Responsibilities
by Steve DelBianco May 11, 2017

May 11, 2017

The ICANN Business Constituency (BC) supports the proposed Bylaws Changes to Move the Board Governance Committee's Reconsideration Process Responsibilities to Another Board Committee. (comment page at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-bgc-2017-03-31-en ) Regarding the proposed charter for the new Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee, the BC has these suggestions and requests: Section 1. Purpose It is proposed that there could be an "Additional purpose to be defined by the Board as appropriate.” The BC believes that the Board should minimize the scope of any additional Committee work so that it can focus on Reconsideration Requests. Section 3. Composition The BC suggests that the Board maintain a 2:1 ratio of voting to non-voting directors on this Committee. The BC requests explanation for why subcommittees might be needed to handle Reconsideration Requests. The BC requests explanation of the anticipated role for consultants and advisors in the handling of Reconsideration Requests. — This comment was drafted by Philip Corwin and Steve DelBianco. It was approved in accord with our charter. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

[comments-bylaws-bgc-31mar17] NCSG Comment
by Rafik Dammak May 11, 2017

May 11, 2017

Hi, I am submitting this comment (attached) on behalf of NCSG as NCSG Policy Committee Chair Thanks. Best Regards, Rafik

1 0

[comments-bylaws-bgc-31mar17] Ratification Pending: ALAC Statement on the Proposed Fundamentals Bylaws Changes to Move the Board Governance Committee's Reconsideration Process Responsibilities to Another Board Committee
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 10, 2017

May 10, 2017

Dear All, Kindly find attached the ALAC Statement on the Proposed Fundamentals Bylaws Changes to Move the Board Governance Committee's Reconsideration Process Responsibilities to Another Board Committee. In the interest of time, the ALAC Chair requested that the Statement be transmitted to the ICANN public comment process, copying the ICANN Staff member responsible for this topic, with a note that the Statement is pending ALAC ratification. Once ratified, this Statement will be resubmitted incorporating updated ratification information in the introduction section. ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

[comments-bylaws-bgc-31mar17] DotMusic Comments on Proposed Fundamentals Bylaws Changes concerning BGC
by Constantine Roussos May 10, 2017

May 10, 2017

Dear ICANN: As mentioned in public comments at the ICANN GDD Meeting in Madrid on May 9, 2017, DotMusic has concerns with respect to the proposed changes to introduce Fundamental Bylaws revisions that would move the Board Governance Committee's (BGC) responsibilities for the Reconsideration process as set forth under Article 4, Section 4.2 of the Bylaws to the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC). DotMusic has filed a reconsideration request with ICANN (See Reconsideration Request 16-5 at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-16-5-dotmusic-request…) on February 24, 2016, (i.e. more than 14 months ago) that has not yet been determined by the BGC, despite the 30-day window to make a determination or make a recommendation to the ICANN Board. DotMusic also presented materials to the BGC concerning the Reconsideration Request 16-5 on September 17, 2016. Since the filing of the Reconsideration Request, many ICANN Board members and ICANN BGC members have been replaced with new members. Many Board members that have read the Reconsideration Request materials or were presented to are no longer members of the ICANN Board and the BGC.This presents an overarching issue concerning the Proposed Fundamentals Bylaws Changes to move the BGC's responsibilities for the Reconsideration process to another Accountability Committee. Since the BGC has not make a determination yet, it appears that ICANN may be "kicking the can down the road" to constitute a new Accountability Committee comprised of new members to determine the Reconsideration Request 16-5 (and other pending Reconsideration Requests concerning Community Priority Evaluation). Such a move would compromise the DotMusic presentations made to existing ICANN and BGC members concerning the Reconsideration Request 16-5. BGC Chair Chris Disspain has noted at the ICANN GDD Madrid Meeting that DotMusic may have to present again to the new Accountability Committee as needed. BGC Chair Chris Disspain also acknowledged the issue with ICANN Board and BGC members that were presented to in 2016 who are no longer Board members. While there is a clause in the Bylaws that the ICANN BGC could choose not to make a determination within 30 days if it is "impractical," it is clear that a delay that has exceeded 14 months has harmed DotMusic and other community applicants in a similar situation. DotMusic has spent significant resources, time and legal fees to provide comprehensive materials to the ICANN BGC Board and present ICANN with extensive and comprehensive materials to conduct its due diligence and make a determination to accept Reconsideration Request 16-5. As such, moving accountability to the Reconsideration Request 16-5 from the current BGC to a new Accountability Committee lacks predictability, accountability, transparency and ensures there will be further delays. Such an action harms DotMusic and all the affected parties associated with the .MUSIC string as well as other community applicants and their associated parties. Not only has the Reconsideration Request "outlived" many Board members' tenure, it appears that the revision concerning the BGC to be replaced by a new Accountability Committee may be a tactic to "acquit" the BGC of any responsibility and accountability in making timely decisions concerning the Reconsideration Requests on hold relating to Community Priority Evaluation. It is impractical and premature to make changes to the new Bylaws prior to determining the existing Reconsideration Requests that are put on hold pending the independent review of the Community Priority Evaluation process. As such, shifting accountability from the BGC to a new Accountability Committee is impractical, harmful and will likely lead to further delays. It appears that the ICANN Board and BGC may be attempting to shift accountability to making a determination on the pending Reconsideration Requests to a new Accountability Committee comprised of new members that would further aggravate the vicious circle of continued lack of predictability and lack of timely decision-making by ICANN concerning time-sensitive requests filed by community members that have invoked accountability mechanisms against ICANN. Respectfully submitted, -- Constantine Roussos DotMusic Founder http://music.us Twitter: http://twitter.com/mus

1 0

[comments-bylaws-bgc-31mar17] Afnic support and suggestions for improvement
by Mathieu Weill April 5, 2017

April 5, 2017

Dear members of the ICANN Board, Afnic is the registry operator for top-level domains corresponding to the national territory of France (.fr, .re, .pm, .yt, .wf, .tf) and the backend registry operator for 15 new generic Top Level Domains. Afnic is a member of CCNSO, Centr, and APTLD. It should also be noted that, although this comment is not provided in this capacity, I am the ccNSO appointed co-chair of the CCWG-Accountability. Afnic supports the general direction of the proposal which appear to aim at better organizing the workload within the Board. We also appreciate the opportunity to comment and offer a couple of (minor) feedbacks on the proposal itself. They could reasonably be framed as suggestions for improvement rather than concerns or issues. First, we do not believe it had been identified in the drafting of the new Bylaws that the way the Board organizes its work (into various Committees for instance) to deal with the various accountability mechanisms should be a Fundamental Bylaw. As a consequence, for greater flexibility in the future, instead of the proposed changes in the Bylaws (consisting in replacing the name of a committee by another committee name), Afnic suggests that the reformulation enables the Board to form or designate a committee to handle these requests. Instead of The Board has designated the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee to review and consider Reconsideration Requests., a formulation could be : The Board designates a Committee to review and consider Reconsider Requests. For the purpose of this section, this designated Committee is referred to as The Board Accountability Mechanism Committee. Second, regarding the draft Committee Charters, we find surprising that the BGC remains in charge of the Ombudsman own motion investigations. For consistency reasons, we would rather see this responsibility transferred to the new Accountability Mechanism Committee, because the Ombudsman is one of the Accountability mechanisms in place at ICANN. Thank you for your consideration of this comment. Best, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

1 0