ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Comment on GNSO Structures Charter Amendment Process

  • To: comments-structures-charter-22jun13@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Comment on GNSO Structures Charter Amendment Process
  • From: Edward Morris <edward.morris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:57:19 +0100

Although a member of the Executive Committee of the Noncommercial Users
Constituency (NCUC) , I am submitting these comments as an individual and
they in no way should be considered as the official position of the NCUC,
NCSG or any any other group or organization to which I belong  or represent.

I commend Steve and the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) for
correctly evaluating the GNSO Structures Charter Amendment Process
recommendation and I fully concur with IPC’s suggested modifications.

The Charter and Bylaw amendment process does appear to differ widely
amongst and between SG’s/Constituencies. Within the NCUC there are three
methods for proposing a Bylaws amendment, two of which do not require the
participation of any elected or appointed Constituency official. A formal
requirement of ICANN notification may disadvantage those who may be new to
our communities or are  not in any formal leadership position and thus may
not be aware of the more detailed aspects of ICANN/SG-Constituency
relations. A less specific “encouragement” standard, as proposed by the
IPC,  should ensure notification by those aware of the process yet not
render improper any amending effort by those who, because of position or
experience, may not be aware of the requirement.

I concur with IPC’s recommendation that charter amendments be approved
unless explicitly rejected by 2/3 of Board members. Deference should be
given to the desires of the SG/Constituency unless any such proposed change
in their governing documents is clearly seen as undesirable, for stated
reasons, as evidenced by a super majority vote of the board. In any event,
the “black hole” between 50% approval and 66 2/3 % rejection must be dealt
with in any approved process.

In a similar vein, the Board should be required to act upon proposed
changes within a certain defined time frame. Four meetings does seem to me
to be more than enough time for Board consideration. We certainly want to
prevent a situation where needed modifications at the SG/Constituency level
are delayed or rendered impotent by Board inaction, intentional or

Thank you for considering my comments in support of the IPC submission.

Edward Morris

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy