2006-02-28 - Consideration of ccNSO's Recommendations 2, 4 and 5 on Proposed ICANN Bylaws Changes

John Jeffrey presented these additional recommendations for ICANN Bylaws changes from the ccPDP (the ccNSO??s Policy Development Process). After a discussion of the proposed changes and public comment by the Board, Peter Dengate Thrush moved and Demi Getschko seconded the following resolution:

Whereas, the ccNSO Council has considered a number of issues which are understood to stand in the way of a number of ccTLD managers joining the ccNSO.

Whereas, the ccNSO Council resolved on 28 May 2005, to initiate a ccNSO Policy Development Process to consider changes to ICANN Bylaws Article IX (Country-Code Names Supporting Organisation), Annex B (ccNSO Policy-Development Process) and Annex C (the scope of the ccNSO) to address the matters outlined in paragraphs A to M of section 3.2 of the Issues Report as published on 7 June 2005.

Whereas, the ccNSO has conducted the ccPDP in accordance with Annex B of the ICANN Bylaws.

Whereas, the ccNSO Council resolved on 2 December 2005, to approve the Board Report containing eight ccNSO Recommendations for changes to improve and clarify the ICANN Bylaws on the ccNSO and the ccPDP in the interest of the ccNSO membership, the ccNSO Council and other stakeholders.

Whereas, the Issue Manager has submitted the Board Report to the Board for consideration on 2 December 2005.

Whereas, the proposed ccNSO Bylaw changes have been posted for public comment on the ICANN webpage for over 21 days, and one comment regarding Recommendations 2, 4,and 5 was received.

Whereas, with regard to ccNSO Recommendation 2 the comment received did not oppose the principle underlying Recommendation 2, but suggested different language which was not only an attempt to clarify the accepted principle, but would also imply a change to this principle.

Whereas, with regard to ccNSO Recommendation 4 no comments were received on the additional element that in order for a ccNSO policy to apply to a member of the ccNSO by virtue of membership of the ccNSO this policy has to be within the scope of the The comment received was on the aspect of determination whether an issue is within scope or not. According to current Bylaws the ccNSO Council may initiate a ccPDP whether an issue is in scope or not. The Recommendation balances the roles and responsibilities of General Counsel and the ccNSO Council to determine whether an issue is within Scope of the ccNSO. Further, according to the current rules and procedures of the ccNSO itself, the membership can co-determine the initiation of a ccPDP and the decision of the ccNSO Counsel.

Whereas with regard to ccNSO Recommendation 5 the comment received was on the possibility that the ccNSO itself may develop policies binding on its members. According to the Recommendation ccNSO policies apply only to members of the ccNSO by virtue of their membership if they are developed in accordance with Article IX, section 4.10 and 4.11. Furthermore, according to the same Recommendation it is clarified that the output of other activities by the ccNSO can only be adhered to voluntary by members of the ccNSO.

Resolved (06.09) that the Bylaws changes as proposed through ccNSO Recommendations 2, 4 and 5 are approved.

The Board approved the resolution by a voice vote of the 14 members present. Hagen Hultszch was not present for the vote.