Board working on Bylaws

The notetaker having arrived slightly late, it seems like the board accepted much of the input from the GAC, and from some DNSO constituencies who yesterday asked for a constituency concept where one entity can simultaneously be a member of severa…

The notetaker having arrived slightly late, it seems like the board accepted much of the input from the GAC, and from some DNSO constituencies who yesterday asked for a constituency concept where one entity can simultaneously be a member of several constituencies.

Moderately good news for the ALAC: Subject to the transition article of the bylaws, the At Large Advisory Committee is going to have a non-voting liaison on the GNSO Names Council. If I got it correctly, ALAC is not going to be explicitly included with the policy-development process. The Board is now going into resolution mode. The plan seems to be to adopt the bylaws, but only make them effective once the transition article has been accepted. Blokzijl is concerned that the board is going to put some instrument in place which does not exist. worried about future coordination of crucial internet technical functions. Supposes that this is only one stop on the road to the final set of bylaws. Wonders how many times the board is going through process again, adopting bylaws that are known to be subject to fundamental change in the close future. Too early to adopt them. Blokzijl is particularly concerned about the relationship with the RIRs and the ccTLDs. Cohen and Katoh-san vehemently disagree with him. Schink also suggests to vote on the changes now, but wants caveat language on ccTLDs and RIRs in the resolution. Also wants to stick closer to GAC suggestion with respect to expert advisory panels/bodies, as far as international treaty organizations are concerned. Abril i Abril doesn’t really like the proposed structure, but seems to find it better than the one we have now. Andy wants to add “free flow of information” behind “innovation” in core value 2. Both Auerbach and Abril i Abril second. Friendly amendment from Kraaijenbrink to delete “free”. Accepted unanimously. Further suggests to not just disclose financial contributors, but also amount of contributions. Accepted with two abstentions.

Article 4 section 2, point 16, procedures of the reconsideration committee. Suggests to end the first sentence of this point behind “abusive”, and remove the clause on parties unwilling to participate in the public comment period. Rationale: You can’t prove that you didn’t know. Cohen: Common to have publication in an acceptable way. Lynn agrees with Andy’s intent, but would like to see different language. Extensive discussion. Lynn proposes to accept amendment with the understanding that precise wording be voted on in December. Cerf proposes not to have any complex language about future changes. Kraaijenbrink doesn’t want to remove it, but suggests to revisit it later; so does Schink. Vote: 7 in favor, 8 against, 3 abstain.

Article XI, section 2.1, GAC principles; point c. Andy wants publication of GAC charter and operating principles and procdedures on the web. Accepted.

Article XI, section 2.4, ALAC. Have a liaison clause in there. Funding? Does not have proposed wording. Would like to raise the question how to deal with this. Lynn believes that funding hard-coded in the bylaw would be a mistake. Vint: Nothing prohibits funding. Karl: There is something which prohibits ICANN funding for regular GNSO Council members. GNSO article forbids funding for GNSO participants. Liaison considered as a GNSO participant? Louis not sure. Cohen could argue both ways. Important and well-taken point. Sympathy on the board for possibility of trying to provide assistance to ALAC as it starts going. Refer to the counsel. Have this on the December agenda. Vint: Take this into general discussion about ALAC. Rather than specifically put this onto agenda as bylaw discussion, put this into general ALAC topic.

Lyman Chapin suggests change to Ssection 2 of article XI: “f) Subject to the provisions of the Transition Article of these bylaws, the At-Large Advisory Committee may designate a non-voting liaison to each of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to the extent that the at-large advisory committee deems it appropriate and useful to do so.” Language taken from GAC description. Procedural confusion: Andy thought Lyman was addressing funding. Withdraws and re-introduces at a later time. No proposed text on Andy’s funding question; defer.

Andy again: Article XIII, section 9; new paragraph about conflicts of interests. Wants public statements on conflicts of interest. Serious concern. Alejandro afraid about privacy implications. Must make sure that information is available to committee. Unduly hasty to write this into the bylaws. Lynn asks about director statements. Louis: Currently information is made available confidentially to conflicts of interest committee. Rationale: People may be unwilling to disclose all investments. Lynn: Deal with this in the policy. Don’t do it in the bylaws. There may be a chilling effect on future directors or officers. Karl does believe in public disclosure, even when there is chilling effect. Improve confidence. Andy asks for vote. Lynn: Would have to vote against even if he would support substance, since directors not covered by suggested change. Either both or none. Linda Wilson: Disclosure of material interests is common. Prefers to have this discussed by the CoI committee, in order to not take it to extreme. Lynn: Take off the table, consider again. Vote: Not accepted, three in favor, one abstention.

Finally: Andy quotes publication safeguards about policy changes, and suggests to apply this. Vint: Provisional, not final adoption of bylaws.

Break until 11:15.

%d bloggers like this: