[lir-wg] ICANN Reform

Reading trough another important document the proposed bylaws I have the
following comments:
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/proposed-bylaws-02oct02.htm

>Article I  Mission & Core values
I note that policy development trough Openness and Transparency are not part
of the mission or core values.

Transparency is treated in a separate article III

>Article II
I note that the board may act by a majority vote, some times of all members,
but in most cases of the members present. While this is normal and
sufficient for most activities I am uncertain if this provides stability
enough for ICANN. There should actually be a reference here to Article XIX
which requires 2/3 for alterations or amendments to the bylaws.

Article XIX should in my view also require an open process for changes and
amendments, this process should explicitly include some endorsment from
thesupporting organisations.

The rationale behind this is that in a normal corporation or organisation
changing the bylaws is not within the powers of the board but rather a task
for the general assembly. Thus should be with ICANN aswell.


Artilce II Transparency
some of the details on how to opreate a website hardly belongs in the bylaws
but rather in some operating procedures.

Section 5.2
Actions taken by the board shall be made public within 5 days.
I am uncertain if this applies to the AC aswell ? Mayby they should ?

Article IV Accountability and review and Article V Ombudsman
I note that this is a fairly substantial set of roles and procedures to
handle disputes etc:
- and Ombudsman
- reconcideration comittee of the board
- Independendt review panel

I whish a simpler structure could have been possible, but I guess the
learnings have shown that this is necessary ?


Article  VI
Composition of the Board.
As I understand the current ICANN Bylaws there shall be no less than nine
(9) and no more than nineteen (19) members of the board.

Three (3) Directors selected by the Address Supporting Organization,
Three (3) Directors selected by the Domain Name Supporting Organization
Three (3) Directors selected by the Protocol Supporting Organization

and Nine (9) at large directors.

pluss the president.

In the new board there will be
Eight (8) voting members selected by the nomination comitee
Two  selected by the Address Supporting Organization
Two selected by the Country-Coude Names Supporting Organisation
Two selected by the Generic Names Supporting Organisation
 plus the president

To view the shift of influence on ICANN desicions I made the following
simple calculations:

     Old   New
      ASO 3 16 %  2 13 %
      PSO 3 16 %  0 0 %
      Cc  0 %  2 13 %
      G  0 %  2 13 %
      Names 3 16 %
      Other 9 47 %  8 53 %
      President 1 5 %  1 7 %
     19   15


My observation is that the IP addressing community direct influence is
reduced from 16% of the votes on the board to 13 % While the manes community
direct influence is increased from 16 to 23%. To balance the view the
addressing comunity is given some influence on the selection of the other
board members by a seat on the nomination comitee just as we had some
influence on the election of the at large representatives in the old bylaws
trough participation on equal terms with other members of the community in
the election process.

I think this change reflects the focus of ICANN and I can understand, even
tough I do not necessarily fully agree, thosse who think this change is so
bad that the addressing comunity should walk away from ICANN.

As a matter of principle I personnaly do not think it is a good idea to have
the CEO of a company or a corporation be a voting member of the board. The
CEO should report to the board and be sresponsible for carrying out the
desicions of the board and thus not be part of the desicion makers
themselves. This is however not a change to the current structure, and may
just as well be a cultural thing.

Section 8.
I am somewhat confused by this, couldnæt this be made much simpler ?

Article VIII Address supporting organisation
As this mainly refers to the existing MOU I have no comments other than
- there is the addition of a GAC liason to the Address Council which I see
no harm in. I would however raise the question on wether the AC could have a
liason to the GAC in return ?

- does the MOU need to be reviewed to fit better in the new Bylaws ?

Article IX and X
I note that while the ASO article consists of 5 parts of half a page or so,
the Articles concerning the names span several pages. Most of this belong in
the Bylaws or MOU of that particular supporting organisation.

Bottom line from reading this is that while I personally could live with
most of it I get
- less feeling of a bottom-up organisation with open processes, and more the
feeling of an organisation with a board making top down desicions.

I know this is perhaps mainly emotional.

As always I am curious to hear other opinions on this.

Best Regards,

Hans Petter Holen