Re: [wg-review] New constituencies was: "We are in the starting line......"

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

Hello Bret,

Thank you for your pertinent comments.

Before we look into the relevant Bylaws, it will be worth
looking back on how this ICANN Bylaws have been amended
such as by whom or what kind of discussion or consultation in doing so.

November 6, 1998 Original Bylaws
November 21, 1998 Amended Bylaws
March 31, 1999 Amended Bylaws
May 27, 1999 Amended Bylaws
August 12, 1999 Amended Bylaws
August 26, 1999 Amended Bylaws
September 27, 1999 Amended Bylaws
October 29, 1999 Amended and Restated Bylaws
March 10, 2000 Amended Bylaws
July 16, 2000 Amended Bylaws
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-history.htm

> It's also my belief, and I understand that many on the NC share it, that
> petitions for new constituencies can be made directly to the Board and do
> not need to go through the Names Council.

There have been some cases whether or not such petetion can go to the Board
directly without NC consulation. If so, what could be a procedure such as
through ICANN staff or literally directly, which should be clarified to give
guidance to those who want to go to the Board directly.

> By the way, I think it would be worth everyone's time to take a quick read
> of Article VI-B (linked above) to understand what's "hard-wired" into the
> Bylaws and what's susceptible of change by the NC alone. These
distinctions
> will likely affect the specifics of this WG's report and recommendation.
(In
> other words, some recommendations will require implementation by the Board
> and some will require implementation by the Names Council.)

It would be of help to draw more specific line as much as possible in WG
report
to avoid any potential confusion among what NC/Board is recommended to do
or NC/Board can do and what NC/Board should do and what NC/Board should
not do in accomplishing their own tasks.

YJ