Need more information

[Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@xxxxxxxxx>]

In theory at least this a good proposal but I am concerned that there is a lack 
of relevant information here and the format - a change in ICANN's bylaws - is 
the wrong approach.

For example, since this directly impacts large sections of the ICANN community, 
it should be spelt out what the changes would actually mean.

Does it mean some Board members have six months more, or six months less in the 
job? Who are they? (Why Board seat numbers and not who actually puts them 
there?)

There is a small but very important change in there - some constituencies will 
have to give six months' notice of new Board member selections. 

Has this change been made just to fit with the new schedule? Has the 
implication been thought through? Has ICANN's Board or staff actually 
communicated with those impacted? Or is it relying on people to read this paper 
and object? The latter would be a strange way to process such an important 
change.

Also there is some terminology about consecutive terms that is written in 
legalese that is very hard to parse out. What does it mean? Will Board have a 
maximum of three terms regardless of their seat number? Or be able to jump 
around indefinitely? What is the current situation and what is the change? It's 
not clear.

Another point: has ICANN properly considered whether bylaw changes are the 
right way to do this?

An organization's bylaws should be changed as infrequently as possible. And 
therefore any changes should be made with a long-term view. But these changes 
contain dates for next year and a few years beyond that, presumably 
necessitating yet more bylaw changes in future. This strikes me as an 
ineffective way of doing things.

It would also be helpful to have some details about why the Board terms are 
staggered. Presumably there was some reason for it. If ICANN wants to retain 
and build on its own experience and knowledge, then such changes should review 
why the current status quo is as it is - and then argue why that initial 
reasoning is no longer relevant.

For such changes, it should also be the case that the arguments for and against 
the changes are provided clearly and objectively by staff in order to help 
inform the decision. There is currently no recognition that anyone may be 
opposed to this change, which seems a little unrealistic.

Since the only real advantage to the changes appears to be to the staff 
(running one less induction) and the Board members who presumably get six 
months longer on the Board, it would benefit everyone if:

* This change was explained more clearly in terms of impact
* If staff proactively reached out to ICANN's constituencies (something that 
should happen *before* bylaw changes are written up)
* If an explanation was given for *each* change
* If ICANN would consider bylaw changes designed to work in the long term 
rather than require updates
* If the explanation provided a balanced view of the changes and outlined 
likely concerns as well as the argument for change

Thanks

Kieren McCarthy