Proposal

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

It is sad that such an important aspect of ICANN’s continued evolution and
reform appears to have received zero comments.



In response to the NTIA’s RFI in connection with the expiring JPA I
discussed in great detail the short coming of the current review process,
see
http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/filings/2009/060909-Palage-filing-NTIA-ICANN-
NOI.pdf.



The original ICANN bylaws required a hard coded “no less frequently than
every three years” the proposed red line version of the bylaws proposes



These periodic reviews shall be conducted at

least on a five‐year cycle, based on feasibility

as determined by the Board. Each five‐year

cycle will be computed from the moment of

the reception by the Board of the final report

of the relevant review Working Group.



While I fully agree that the original hard coded three year review was too
restrictive and narrow, I respectfully submit that the newly proposed
timeline is too broad and flexible. A better wording would be to change the
original bylaws to read “no less frequently than every five years.”  The
proposed bylaws allows ICANN to unilaterally extend a review process beyond
the five year window, if ICANN determines (either rightfully or wrongly)
that doing a review in a five year window was not “feasible.”



The ICANN board should also recognize that some events will have fundamental
changes that may require a shorter time frame for review. For example the
addition of several hundred/thousand of new gTLD operators will likely have
an impact on the internal dynamics of GNSO operation, does ICANN really want
to wait five years before addressing any potential imbalance?  The original
bylaw wording was much clearer in the ability of ICANN to implement a review
in advance of the max time frame.



This proposed bylaw amendment also fails to address larger institutional
changes such as those taken in connection with the ICANN Evolution and
Reform Process, where the ccNSO constituency of the former DNSO, was
separated and created into its own Supporting Organization. This proposal to
extend the review cycle to five years without providing for a holistic
review of the interaction of all SOs and Advisory Bodies only serves to
prevent any meaningful organization change such as that experienced during
the 2002-2003 Evolution and Reform Process.



As I tried to articulate in my NTIA RFI submission, ICANN really needs to
take this holistic review of its SOs in part because ICANN staff has failed
to properly address the governance structure and contractual terms of
governments and IGOs that will be applying for gTLD in the upcoming rounds.