Hello Paul,
I see that the approval of the revised bylaws is up for vote 6 days after the close of public comment.
Yes - the timeline is very tight to meet the requirements of the NTIA. We understand that they need to see the bylaws approved before they will finalize their analysis.
Does this mean that the Board thinks that the drafting team will have time in those 6 days to read through and adjust the bylaws?
I notice that there are approximately 30 comments submitted and about 20 of those in the last few days. The drafting team and the Board have been following the discussions in the various online forums where the text of the comments is being developed - so I don't think there are many surprises. For example there are quite a few Board members as well as the legal drafting team that read the CCWG accountability list. The CCWG legal Counsel has already provided some responses to that forum as the comments were being drafted. The Board discussed the comments that had be made within the CCWG on accountability and other forums at its workshop in Amsterdam last weekend. I am aware that there is concern about the exact drafting of grandfathering provisions and restrictions on content regulation, and that was an area of significant discussion in developing the CCWG report itself. I see some of that concern reflected in the INTA submission for example where there are concerns about maintaining key provisions of the registry and registrar agreements, with respect to trademark protection. I expect, as per the original drafting of these bylaws, that the legal teams will be working around the clock for the next few days to review and incorporate the feedback.
Is this Board meeting just to check in on everyone's progress and there will be no vote to adopt? I surely hope so.
That is a possibility - depending on whether the changes required are substantial. In most cases what I have seen are concrete improvements in the drafting - which I am expecting will be taken into account by the legal drafting team. The basic test is whether the draft bylaws are consistent with the reports developed by the community. Note that the text of the bylaws is not locked in stone. There is a clear process for ongoing refinement involving the community. For example, the Empowered Community can reject standard bylaws changes and must approve fundamental bylaw changes. We will continue to gain experience as the changes are put into practice, and I expect that the processes set out in the bylaws will continue to be improved with experience. Regards, Bruce Tonkin