<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">I have already provided my full support for the first<div><br></div><div>I did support the second, but find Seun’s comments persuasive - so like Carlton, continue with my support for the second, but keeping in mind Seun’s comments</div><div><br></div><div>Holly<br><div><div>On 20 May 2016, at 6:17 am, Carlton Samuels <<a href="mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com">carlton.samuels@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small">FWIW, I support the first.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small">FWIW, I support the second and with Seun's observations.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small">-Carlton</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><br>==============================<br>Carlton A Samuels<br>Mobile: 876-818-1799<br><i><font color="#33CC00">Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround</font></i><br>=============================</div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Seun Ojedeji <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Hi Alan,</p><p dir="ltr">On the second point, if I understand it correctly, you are proposing that the following text be removed from the current bylaw draft:</p><p dir="ltr">"...be considered for nomination or designated to the Board, nor..."</p><p dir="ltr">So it then reads:</p><p dir="ltr">"No person who serves on the EC Administration while serving in that capacity shall serve simultaneously on the EC Administration and as a Director or Liaison to the Board"</p><p dir="ltr">I support it, however I will suggest that you explicitly indicate that as an action required as what you have stated in your current text seem to all be rationales.</p><p dir="ltr">Regards<br>
Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos</p>
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On 19 May 2016 14:58, "Alan Greenberg" <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5">
<div>
Most of the comments I made (sent to the CCWG list and IANA-Issues lists)
have either been completely integrated into the CCWG comments or are not
particularly important. There are two that I feel still have merit. I
have reviewed them with the ALT, and I have their full support (including
Cheryl and Leon who have been very involved in the current draft Bylaws
as well as the more recent comments of the CCWG itself on the draft
Bylaws. I am not making these comments without considerable thought. IN
BOTH CASES, IF THE CURRENT DRAFT BYLAWS ARE IMPLEMENTED, I BELIEVE THAT
ICANN WILL BE FOLLOWING A PATH THAT WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT ALL OF
US.<br><br>
I will be submitting these comments to the Public Comment on my own
behalf, but I would like to be able to say that they are supported by the
ALAC prior to the close of the comment oat 23:59 on Saturday. I would
appreciate explicit statements of support, but in the absence of
significant opposition, I will say that the comments are those of the
ALAC.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
PS I will not be submitting the comment until later today. If you notice
any typos, please let me know ASAP.<br><br>
=============================<br>
<font size="5"><b>Background:</b></font> <br>
The Affirmation of Commitment (AoC) Reviews are now being integrated
into the Bylaws. The AoC called for the reviews to be held every three
years, but was unclear as to when the three years was measured from. The
three years has been interpreted flexibly to allow more time between some
reviews and the Board has deferred some reviews due to community overload
(with the agreement of the NTIA, the AoC co-signer). The CCWG required
the new reviews to be carried out no less frequently than every five
years, measured from the start of one review until the start of the next
one. It was recently realized that the last WHOIS review started in
October 2010, so when the new Bylaws are adopted, we will already be
several months past the October 2015 date for the next one to start and
will need to initiate the next one immediately. <br><br>
Since the required review is an Registration Directory Services Review,
renamed from WHOIS Review, we would technically NOT be in default, since
there never has been an "RDS Review". But it is assumed that
this distinction will not affect ICANN's actions.<br><br>
<font size="5"><b>Section 4.6(e)(v) <br>
</b></font>During the CCWG discussions on the interval between the
reviews, the issue of ICANN immediately being in default on the WHOIS/RDS
review was never raised. Moreover, since those discussions were held, the
GNSO new RDS PDPWG has been convened and is well underway. It is
reasonably clear that the people in the volunteer community who would
likely participate in an RDS review significantly overlap with those who
are heavily involved in the RDS PDP. To schedule an RDS Review soon after
the Bylaws are enacted would be serious error and will only serve to slow
the work of the PDP - a PDP that even now may go on for quite some
time.<br><br>
It is clear that there is work that needs to be done that would fall
under the auspices of a full blown PDP. We need a good picture of how the
various current WHOIS/RDS efforts mesh together. We need to assess how
the recommendations of the first WHOIS review are being implemented and
their impact, as well as other WHOIS/RDS related activities unrelated to
that last AoC review.<br><br>
But these efforts, as important as they are, do not need to be done by a
full-blown AoC-like review. Most of the work can be done by staff. To the
extent that "staff cannot be trusted" (something that I
question, but will address), I am others in the community will gladly act
as a sounding block and review their work. [For the record, I was the
person on the ATRT2 who did the full analysis of the WHOIS RT
Recommendation implementation, so I have some idea of what I am talking
about.]<br><br>
The current Bylaws for the organizational reviews all have explicit time
limits in them, but also have the words "if feasible". That was
true even when the organization review interval was (foolishly) three
years instead of the five years it was quickly changed to. "If
feasible" allowed the Board to save an immense amount of wasted
community expense and ICANN dollars. We need some wriggle room in the
current case as well.<br><br>
I strongly suggest that the draft Bylaws be revised to allow additional
flexibility to defer the RDS review until there is a real RDS to review,
and would even suggest that once implemented, they soon after be amended
to add the missing "if feasible".<br><br>
<br>
=============================<br>
<font size="5">Background:<br>
</font>The CCWG Proposal requires the Empowered Community (EC) to take a
variety of actions but was not specific on exactly how this would happen
or what people would take responsibility for ensuring that the actions
are carried out. As a result this had to be addressed during Bylaw
drafting. The concept of the EC Administration was created, embodied by
the Chairs (or other delegates) of the AC/SOs participating in the
EC.<br><br>
Along with the creation (or perhaps identification, since there was
always a need for such a body/group) of the EC Administration, a section
was added to the draft Bylaws placing restrictions on the people involved
in the EC Administration.<br><br>
<br>
<font size="5"><b>Section 7.4(d) <br>
</b></font>"No person who serves on the EC Administration while
serving in that capacity shall be considered for nomination or designated
to the Board, nor serve simultaneously on the EC Administration and as a
Director or Liaison to the Board."<br><br>
Lawyers Comments (in reply to my early raising of this issue):<br>
On March 31, 2016, counsel posed the following question to the Bylaws
Coordination Group and received confirmation that the disqualification in
Section 7.4(d) be included in the Bylaws: "Confirm that chairs of
the Decisional Participants and persons designated by the Decisional
Participants to serve on the EC Chairs Council cannot be nominated or
serve on the ICANN Board. Such a provision would be consistent with other
provisions in the current Bylaws, which provide that (a) "no person
who serves in any capacity (including as a liaison) on any Supporting
Organization Council shall simultaneously serve as a Director or liaison
to the Board (Article VI, Section 4.2)" and (b) persons serving on
the Nominating Committee must be "neutral and objective, without any
fixed personal commitments to particular individuals, organizations, or
commercial objectives in carrying out their Nominating Committee
responsibilities†(Article VII, Section 4.4)."]<br>
<br>
I note that the term "nominated" as used in the new Bylaws is
used in the sense of the current Nominating Committee. Once a person is
"nominated" by the NomCom or an AC/SO, they will become a
Director once the EC takes the appropriate action (and the EC has no
option to NOT take such action). However, this is confusing terminology,
because an AC/SO may well have a nomination process used to select
candidates who will then vie for the actual AC/SO selection.<br><br>
I believe that the Bylaws Coordination Group may have erred in its reply
and moreover, the Bylaw drafters went farther than was required in
implementing that response. There are several reasons.<br><br>
1. I cannot understand what the relation ship is to the EC Administration
and the rules that apply to the NomCom. The NomCom makes decisions. The
AC/SO Chairs or other delegates who participate in the EC Administration
have no discretion whatsoever. They MUST follow the directions of the
entity nominating/removing a director.<br><br>
2. Given that lack of ability to influence outcomes, I find it
unreasonable to restrict such a person from submitting an SoI to the
NomCom or to their own AC/SO as a potential director (ie to be
"considered").<br><br>
3. I would find it quite reasonable that they would have to surrender (or
be deemed to have surrendered) their EC Administration seat if they are
actually nominated (nominated in the sense of the Bylaws - will actually
serve on the Board once the EC Designates them). This is in line with the
reference to serving "simultaneously"<br><br>
4. I note that the wording in the proposed Bylaws is different that what
was asked. The March 31st question was "Confirm that chairs of the
Decisional Participants and persons designated by the Decisional
Participants to serve on the EC Chairs Council cannot be nominated or
serve on the ICANN Board.". The draft Bylaws extend that to
"considered for nomination" which is a much wider
group.<br><br>
5. The path of AC/SO Chair to Director is not unreasonable - both require
high degree of confidence in the person expressed by the AC/SO. And to be
blunt, arguably two of our best currently seated AC/SO Directors have
followed exactly that path, as did the current Board Chair (although in
that case, since the SSAC has chosen not to be part of the EC, the rule
would not be applicable).</div>
<br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
ALAC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank">ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br>
<br>
At-Large Online: <a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a><br>
ALAC Working Wiki: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a><br></blockquote></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
ALAC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br>
<br>
At-Large Online: <a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a><br>
ALAC Working Wiki: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>
_______________________________________________<br>ALAC mailing list<br><a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac<br><br>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org<br>ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>