May 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC
by Kavouss Arasteh May 3, 2015

May 3, 2015

Dear Mathieu Pls assure me and those supported me including Tijani that all reference to " private led" before term " multistakeholder" IS TOTALLY DELETED Refards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 3 May 2015, at 10:46, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org.tn> wrote: > > Thanks a lot Mathieu > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Executive Director > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] > Envoyé : dimanche 3 mai 2015 09:27 > À : Tijani BEN JEMAA > Cc : Sébastien Bachollet; Grace Abuhamad; Accountability Cross Community > Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC > 01 > 02 Dear Tijani, > 03 > 04 You can find it here https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report > 05 > 06 Best > > 07 Mathieu Weill > 08 --------------- > 09 Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style > 10 > Le 3 mai 2015 à 01:17, "Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org.tn> a écrit : > > Sébastien, > > Je n’ai pas reçu la version V10. Tu peux me l’envoyer s’il te plait ? > > Bonne nuit > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Directeur Exécutif > Fédération Méditerranéenne des Associations d'Internet (FMAI) > Tél : + 216 41 649 605 > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > 11 De : accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Sébastien Bachollet > Envoyé : vendredi 1 mai 2015 18:54 > À : Grace Abuhamad; Accountability Cross Community > Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC > Importance : Haute > 12 > Thanks for this version of the document. > I am not sure I will have time to read it all before the dead line :( > > I send my first remarks and suggestion reading the CCWG-Draft-Proposal-V10-redline.docx > Maybe you have already discuss some of those issues. Then apologies. > > P4 - §3 – I would highlight the following > These recommendations do not reflect CCWG-Accountability consensus at this point. > > P6 - §16 – The CCWG-Accountability proposes the creation of a formal membership body called the “SO/AC Membership” model. > I suggest to add « it is the group’s reference option » > > > P6 - §16 – The CCWG-Accountability proposes (it is the group’s reference option) the creation of a formal membership body called the “SO/AC Membership” model. > As it is in the same §16 in item 4 about the community powers > > P9 - §32 – (and following) - … accountability involves the processes whereby ICANN answers to its stakeholders for the impacts on those stakeholders of ICANN’s decisions, policies and programs. > I have since a long time a trouble with the use of ICANN in this (and other) sentence. ICANN is all of us (Board/Staff/SO/AC… therefore how ICANN can answer to itself? > Are we thinking about one part of ICANN talking/answering to another part of ICANN? > > P19 - §58 – Not sure it is a good idea to have the ICANN bylaws referencing to another document. > > P23 - §97 – Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet and its usage at all levels of policy… > > > > Thanks for consideration. > All the best > Sébastien Bachollet > +33 6 07 66 89 33 > Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ > Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com> > > De : Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> > Date : vendredi 1 mai 2015 03:23 > À : Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC > > Dear all, > > Here attached is the CCWG-Accountability Draft Report V10. I have attached a redline and a clean version (in Word and PDF). > > Version 10 incorporates the following: > · Changes from the CCWG-Accountability call on Thursday 30 April at 05:00 UTC > · Edits from legal counsel (Sidley and Adler) > · Approval from the CWG-Stewardship Chairs/Client Committee regarding incorporation of CWG-Stewardship recommendations > · Edits from Chairs and Rapporteurs > Please send your edits, comments, etc to the mailing list by Saturday 2 May 01:00 UTC (24h from now). Staff will incorporate the edits over the weekend so as to release a final version for Public Comment on Monday, 4 May. If possible, edits are appreciate in track changes in the clean version so that they are clearly marked and visible. There will be professional formatting and copyediting done before publication, so we suggest that your time my be best spent by focusing on the substance-related edits. > > Also, please remember to submit your feedback regarding the XPlane graphics by Saturday as well. Adam will send a reminder re: XPlane. > > Almost there! > — Grace > > > > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > <~WRD000.jpg> > Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active. > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active. > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC
by Mathieu Weill May 3, 2015

May 3, 2015

Dear Tijani, You can find it here https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report Best Mathieu Weill --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style > Le 3 mai 2015 à 01:17, "Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org.tn> a écrit : > > Sébastien, > > Je n’ai pas reçu la version V10. Tu peux me l’envoyer s’il te plait ? > > Bonne nuit > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Directeur Exécutif > Fédération Méditerranéenne des Associations d'Internet (FMAI) > Tél : + 216 41 649 605 > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > 01 De : accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Sébastien Bachollet > Envoyé : vendredi 1 mai 2015 18:54 > À : Grace Abuhamad; Accountability Cross Community > Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC > Importance : Haute > 02 > Thanks for this version of the document. > I am not sure I will have time to read it all before the dead line :( > > I send my first remarks and suggestion reading the CCWG-Draft-Proposal-V10-redline.docx > Maybe you have already discuss some of those issues. Then apologies. > > P4 - §3 – I would highlight the following > These recommendations do not reflect CCWG-Accountability consensus at this point. > > P6 - §16 – The CCWG-Accountability proposes the creation of a formal membership body called the “SO/AC Membership” model. > I suggest to add « it is the group’s reference option » > > P6 - §16 – The CCWG-Accountability proposes (it is the group’s reference option) the creation of a formal membership body called the “SO/AC Membership” model. > As it is in the same §16 in item 4 about the community powers > > P9 - §32 – (and following) - … accountability involves the processes whereby ICANN answers to its stakeholders for the impacts on those stakeholders of ICANN’s decisions, policies and programs. > I have since a long time a trouble with the use of ICANN in this (and other) sentence. ICANN is all of us (Board/Staff/SO/AC… therefore how ICANN can answer to itself? > Are we thinking about one part of ICANN talking/answering to another part of ICANN? > > P19 - §58 – Not sure it is a good idea to have the ICANN bylaws referencing to another document. > > P23 - §97 – Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet and its usage at all levels of policy… > > > Thanks for consideration. > All the best > Sébastien Bachollet > +33 6 07 66 89 33 > Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ > Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com> > > De : Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> > Date : vendredi 1 mai 2015 03:23 > À : Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC > > Dear all, > > Here attached is the CCWG-Accountability Draft Report V10. I have attached a redline and a clean version (in Word and PDF). > > Version 10 incorporates the following: > Changes from the CCWG-Accountability call on Thursday 30 April at 05:00 UTC > Edits from legal counsel (Sidley and Adler) > Approval from the CWG-Stewardship Chairs/Client Committee regarding incorporation of CWG-Stewardship recommendations > Edits from Chairs and Rapporteurs > Please send your edits, comments, etc to the mailing list by Saturday 2 May 01:00 UTC (24h from now). Staff will incorporate the edits over the weekend so as to release a final version for Public Comment on Monday, 4 May. If possible, edits are appreciate in track changes in the clean version so that they are clearly marked and visible. There will be professional formatting and copyediting done before publication, so we suggest that your time my be best spent by focusing on the substance-related edits. > > Also, please remember to submit your feedback regarding the XPlane graphics by Saturday as well. Adam will send a reminder re: XPlane. > > Almost there! > — Grace > > > > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active. > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC
by Sébastien Bachollet May 2, 2015

May 2, 2015

Thanks for this version of the document. I am not sure I will have time to read it all before the dead line :( I send my first remarks and suggestion reading the CCWG-Draft-Proposal-V10-redline.docx Maybe you have already discuss some of those issues. Then apologies. P4 - §3 I would highlight the following These recommendations do not reflect CCWG-Accountability consensus at this point. P6 - §16 The CCWG-Accountability proposes the creation of a formal membership body called the ³SO/AC Membership² model. I suggest to add « it is the group¹s reference option » P6 - §16 The CCWG-Accountability proposes (it is the group¹s reference option) the creation of a formal membership body called the ³SO/AC Membership² model. As it is in the same §16 in item 4 about the community powers P9 - §32 (and following) - accountability involves the processes whereby ICANN answers to its stakeholders for the impacts on those stakeholders of ICANN¹s decisions, policies and programs. I have since a long time a trouble with the use of ICANN in this (and other) sentence. ICANN is all of us (Board/Staff/SO/AC therefore how ICANN can answer to itself? Are we thinking about one part of ICANN talking/answering to another part of ICANN? P19 - §58 Not sure it is a good idea to have the ICANN bylaws referencing to another document. P23 - §97 Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet and its usage at all levels of policy Thanks for consideration. All the best Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com> De : Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date : vendredi 1 mai 2015 03:23 À : Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC > Dear all, > > Here attached is the CCWG-Accountability Draft Report V10. I have attached a > redline and a clean version (in Word and PDF). > > Version 10 incorporates the following: > * Changes from the CCWG-Accountability call on Thursday 30 April at 05:00 UTC > * Edits from legal counsel (Sidley and Adler) > * Approval from the CWG-Stewardship Chairs/Client Committee regarding > incorporation of CWG-Stewardship recommendations > * Edits from Chairs and Rapporteurs > Please send your edits, comments, etc to the mailing list by Saturday 2 May > 01:00 UTC (24h from now). Staff will incorporate the edits over the weekend so > as to release a final version for Public Comment on Monday, 4 May. If > possible, edits are appreciate in track changes in the clean version so that > they are clearly marked and visible. There will be professional formatting and > copyediting done before publication, so we suggest that your time my be best > spent by focusing on the substance-related edits. > > Also, please remember to submit your feedback regarding the XPlane graphics by > Saturday as well. Adam will send a reminder re: XPlane. > > Almost there! > Grace > > > > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community > mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

2 1

In support of Mr Kavouss Arasteh´s comments, Edits due in 3h: V10 DRAFT for your review by 2 May at 01:00 UTC
by Pär Brumark May 2, 2015

May 2, 2015

Dear Colleagues, Niue fully supports Mr Kavouss Arasteh´s comments. Best Regards, Pär /*--- Pär Brumark* //*ICANN GAC Representative Niue** Appointed Member of CCWG Enhancing ICANN Accountability *Tel. Sweden: +46 70 589 73 70 <tel:%2B46%2070%20589%2073%2070> Tel. New Zealand: +64 9 889 03 90 / /Skype: pbr112 / Xperia x3

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] URGENT: Call tonight 40min
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse May 2, 2015

May 2, 2015

Dear Co-Chairs Thomas and Mathieu Scheduling a call with 40 minutes notice in the middle of the night is not conducive to an accountable, inclusive approach. greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini > On May 1, 2015, at 22:26, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Dear all, > I’m writing on behalf of Leon. Please confirm ASAP if you are available for a call tonight either in 40min (6PM ET / 22:00 UTC) or at 8PM ET / midnight UTC. > We will need to schedule immediately if the firms and subteam are available. > Thank you > Grace > > From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> > Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:08 PM > To: ccwg-accountability5 <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> > Cc: stevedelbianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> > Subject: Need confirmation Re: [Acct-Legal] Fwd: The need for more info on Uninc Assos > > Leon — > Please confirm whether or not you would like to host this meeting today at 22:00 UTC (6PM Eastern). I will need to know within the hour in order for us to set up the teleconferencing services. > Thank you, > Grace > > From: ccwg-accountability5 <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> > Reply-To: ccwg-accountability5 <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> > Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 1:18 PM > To: ccwg-accountability5 <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org>, ccwg-accountability5 <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> > Cc: stevedelbianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] Fwd: The need for more info on Uninc Assos > > If 6pm eastern works on the Legal Sub-Team side please have ICANN staff circulate a calendar invite. > > > > Sent with Good (www.good.com) > > From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 12:10:50 PM > To: 'ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org' > Cc: stevedelbianco; Thomas Rickert; Cheryl Langdon-Orr > Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] Fwd: The need for more info on Uninc Assos > > Counsel have been working on revisions to the questions posed and answered on April 23 concerning UAs, adding a description of the proposed use of UAs, responding to Chris Disspain’s question, and attaching a sample of Articles of Association. Sidley has Adler drafts for review as of last night. I think the revised document will be helpful to address the concerns raised in this thread. I suggest that we get that to you before any call. > > I can do a call at 3:30 PM and later today. > > Rosemary > > From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 7:46 AM > To: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org > Cc: stevedelbianco; Thomas Rickert; Cheryl Langdon-Orr > Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] Fwd: The need for more info on Uninc Assos > > I can participate this afternoon and evening (NY time). The weekend is basically shot. Tomorrow is difficult after 11 am New York time as I have a birthday brunch with my son followed by a birthday party for my nephew, and travel to/from both. Sunday morning I have an 8:30 am flight to San Diego for the International Trademark Association Annual Meeting. > > Greg > > On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 8:57 AM, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> wrote: > Thanks David. > > Jordan, Mathieu, Thomas, Cheryl, Steve, Becky? > > Saludos, > > > León > > Enviado desde el móvil. > Errores tipográficos son culpa del tecladito y mis dedos gordos. > > El may 1, 2015, a las 7:36 AM, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> escribió: > > I could participate at 6pm US eastern time today and most of weekend. > > David McAuley > > > From:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 8:19 AM > To: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org > Cc: Thomas Rickert; stevedelbianco; Cheryl Langdon-Orr > Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] Fwd: The need for more info on Uninc Assos > > Thanks Holly. > > I believe today would be difficult but would like to hear from others as to which time would also work for them. > > Thanks > > Saludos, > > > León > > Enviado desde el móvil. > Errores tipográficos son culpa del tecladito y mis dedos gordos. > > El may 1, 2015, a las 6:53 AM, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> escribió: > > Hi Leon, let me check with Rosemary. Are you looking to do this later today? We could potentially do this in the late afternoon. Around 6 eastern. Holly > > > > Sent with Good (www.good.com) > > > From:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org on behalf of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 06:29:18 AM > To: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org; Thomas Rickert; Jordan Carter; Mathieu Weill; Greg Shatan; stevedelbianco; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Becky Burr > Subject: [Acct-Legal] Fwd: The need for more info on Uninc Assos > > Counsel, > > When would you be able to hold a call to help clarify the doubts around UAs interaction and general panorama on them? > > A one hour conference should be enough I think. > > Best regards , > > > León > > Enviado desde el móvil. > Errores tipográficos son culpa del tecladito y mis dedos gordos. > > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> > Fecha: 1 de mayo de 2015, 5:36:41 AM CDT > Para: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr> > Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>, Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Becky Burr <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, stevedelbianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org> > Asunto: Re: The need for more info on Uninc Assos > > It isn't about questions, Mathieu. It is about painting the picture of the reality of how this would actually work. > > I'm starting to think the best way to resolve that would be a half hour teleconference between us and the legal people. To flesh out how the model would work and write it down. > > J. > > On Friday, 1 May 2015, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr> wrote: > Hi all, > > I support as well. I'll leave interaction with lawyers to leon but we would certainly help by starting to point out the questions the community would need answers to ? > > Jordan how would you frame them ? > > Mathieu Weill > --------------- > Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style > > Le 1 mai 2015 à 06:12, Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> a écrit : > > That's just one example... > > Leon, how quickly could we do this? > > J > > On Friday, 1 May 2015, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I agree 100%. The overarching criticism of the first CWG report was that it was "too complex" and "lacked detail." Initially I couldn't understand this criticism, because these appeared mutually exclusive. I've come to understand that lack of detail leads to lack of clarity and lack of clarity makes it difficult to grasp the concepts, and concepts that can't quite be grasped appear complex. > > Add to this the tendency of some (many?) in the community to insert dynamite into any crack in a proposal they don't favor and then point to the impending explosion.... > > For a more direct example, look at the recent exchanges involving Chris Disspain, Jordan and myself. > > Greg > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> wrote: > Hi team (Co-chairs, Rapporteurs, ACCT staff and Greg) > > I feel like I am beating my head against a wall on this but: WE NEED to present more information URGENTLY about the unincorporated association concept. > > My request would be that we ask the lawyers to add a page of "flavour" and summary about the UAs to the 23 April memo and maybe add a couple of more basic questions people might ask, and turn it into a UA Outline/Q&A document. > > Why do I ask this? You can see from the discussions in the group both in calls and on the list that uncertainty around these really isn't helpful. > > The 23 April memo from Sidley/Adler does NOT set out a coherent picture of how these associations would "look and feel". Instead it responds to a bunch of quite specific questions, most of which are helpful, but which together only form part of the picture. (https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52890082/Sidley-Adler%20-%…) > > I am absolutely convinced that we have to be really really clear and open about what these associations would do, what they would look like, how they would sit alongside the SOs and ACs, not envelope them. > > In the absence of clarity from us on this point, we are simply asking for confusion or making space for misdirection and F.U.D. > > Because I am not from California, I can't write this myself. > > > Thoughts? > > Jordan > > > > -- > Jordan Carter > > Chief Executive > InternetNZ > > 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) > jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz > Skype: jordancarter > > A better world through a better Internet > > > > > -- > Jordan Carter > Chief Executive, InternetNZ > +64-21-442-649 | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz > > Sent on the run, apologies for brevity > > > > -- > Jordan Carter > Chief Executive, InternetNZ > +64-21-442-649 | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz > > Sent on the run, apologies for brevity > > > > **************************************************************************************************** > This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. > If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us > immediately. > > **************************************************************************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 > > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Fwd: Revised memo on Unincorporated Associations, with sample Articles of Association attached
by Chris Disspain May 2, 2015

May 2, 2015

Hi Rosemary, Thanks for this. > But causing the UA to act should be a fairly ministerial function, with representatives acting as directed, and each SO/AC could decide how it wants to accomplish that function; they don’t all have to use the same process. Agreed but is there a legally enforceable process for an SO or AC to achieve this? Cheers, Chris On 2 May 2015, at 09:50 , Rosemary E. Fei <rfei(a)adlercolvin.com> wrote: > We avoided making every participant in an SO/AC into a member of that SO/AC’s UA because we understood that such membership would be unacceptable for some participants in some SO/ACs (I believe in particular that GAC was mentioned). Assuming that is still true, then you’re stuck with having only a representational participation in the UA. But causing the UA to act should be a fairly ministerial function, with representatives acting as directed, and each SO/AC could decide how it wants to accomplish that function; they don’t all have to use the same process. > > Also, I thought that the accountability issue was with ICANN as a whole, not within the SO/ACs. I didn’t realize that you were concerned with control within each SO/AC – with, for example, rogue chairs or factions. We’ve been trying, per your instructions, to change as little as possible, while achieving the powers you’ve asked for. We could change more, if this is a concern. Instead of UAs, the members could be nonprofit corporations, but as we said in the memo, it’s a lot more disruptive and a lot more work if you actually incorporate each SO/AC as its own entity, and take its activities out of ICANN and put them into a new corporation. But that might allow you to have greater controls, enforceable under corporate law, over individuals and factions within the SO/AC. > > Rosemary > > From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 4:39 PM > To: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org > Cc: Chris Disspain > Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Revised memo on Unincorporated Associations, with sample Articles of Association attached > > We have discussed the option of the SO's and AC's themselves making these decisions within their existing internal processes (as opposed to creating a representational body that *could* go rogue on the "represented"). Would that option change the equation at all? > > Thanks, > Robin > > On May 1, 2015, at 4:31 PM, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam wrote: > > > A subsidiary question to tink about: > > If the UA's membership is say the Council members of the SO, and one of those members or more goes "rogue", how can the SO remove them, as they are the members and the SO still has no corporate existence itself to act as the member. > > Can the UA be bound to act in respect of its membership by the SO? In other words, could the rules say "The members of this UA are those persons nominated by the SO, and if the SO deems them no longer members, then they are no longer members" or words to that effect? > > cheers > JOrdan > > > On 2 May 2015 at 11:19, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Agree generally with Greg. > HOLLY J. GREGORY > Partner > > Sidley Austin LLP > +1.212.839.5853 > holly.gregory(a)sidley.com > > > From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 7:11 PM > To: Chris Disspain > Cc: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org; CCWG Accountability > Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Revised memo on Unincorporated Associations, with sample Articles of Association attached > > Chris, > > The UA is composed of the members of the SO/AC or some subset thereof, and the bylaws of the UA would dictate that it should follow the direction of the SO/AC and that the members of the UA have no leeway to deviate from that direction. > > If the SO/AC has all the same members as the UA, then there is no possibility that the UA could act differently from the SO/AC. > > So we would need to look at a situation where the members of the UA are a subset of the members of the SO/AC. This breaks down, most likely, to two scenarios. > > In the first scenario, a small group of members of the SO/AC are selected by the SO/AC to act as the members of the UA. I would assume, like most elected leaders and representatives, that those chosen would be relatively well-regarded, trustworthy, longstanding, active contributors to that SO/AC (consider,e.g., GNSO councilors or SO/AC leadership as examples), and that they would indicate that they understood the nature of the role as part of the selection process. As an example, let's assume that the members of the GNSO's UA were the Chair of the GNSO and the Chairs of each SG. Your hypothesis is that these 5 worthies would somehow "go rogue" and hijack the GNSO's UA, violate the bylaws of the UA, and refuse to follow directions from the GNSO (which would undoubtedly be quite public). > > In the second scenario, a large number (but not all) of the members of the (e.g.) GNSO become members of the GNSO's UA. As in the first scenario, they would acknowledge and agree as a condition of membership the nature of their role and the role of the UA. Again, your hypothesis is that this mass of GNSO members would somehow break from the GNSO and the SGs that they are members of, and act in violation of the UAs bylaws and their agreement to act in a limited capacity. > > In response (either way), the GNSO would have removed these "rogues" as members of the UA and replaced them with a crew that would act in accordance with the bylaws and the direction of the GNSO. In all likelihood, they would be removed from the GNSO as well. So your hypothetical further assumes that, in spite of this gross violation of the UA's bylaws and a public declaration that the members were being removed and replaced and that the invalid actions were being reversed, the other UAs (and/or ICANN) would continue to recognize the invalid actions of the rogue deposed members and not the actions of the replacement members acting in accordance with the public instructions of the GNSO. > > I suppose there is a technical possibility that this could occur, but I fail to see it as a practical possibility. Furthermore, if this has happened, ICANN and the multistakeholder model must have become so incredibly broken that an attempt to hijack UA would not be our most significant concerns. > > That said, it's appropriate to clarify the answer to your question from a legal standpoint as well as a practical one and we'll look to Sidley and Adler & Colvin to help us with that. > > Greg > > On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au> wrote: > Thanks. > > I'll assume it attempts to. Here's what is says: > > "The control mechanism for an SO/AC over its unincorporated association could be essentially the same as whatever control mechanisms currently exist to ensure that the SO/ACs do what their participants collectively decide they should do. For example, if an SO/AC has a chair, that chair could be empowered and directed by the participants in the SO/AC to cause the unincorporated association of that SO/AC to act as directed by the SO/AC to exercise membership or designator rights. If the chair refused, that chair could presumably be subjected to discipline or removed and replaced under existing procedures within the SO or AC, just as if the chair had refused to take any other action as directed by the SO/AC. If existing control mechanisms within SO/ACs are insufficient, the SO/AC could modify them to address the weakness." > > I refer to the text in bold. I agree. However this does not answer the question, "and what power of enforcement over the UA does the SO or AC have if the UA refuses to act as directed or if it starts to act on its own behalf without direction?". > > This is and has been the point I have been making for the last day or so. > > Cheers, > > Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer > .au Domain Administration Ltd > T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 > E: ceo(a)auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au > > auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator > > On 2 May 2015, at 08:20, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> wrote: > > Hi Chris! > > I'm sorry but can't tell because I'm on the road and haven't had the chance to go through the document but I forwarded it because I didn't want to hold it. > > Cheers! > > > León > > Enviado desde el móvil. > Errores tipográficos son culpa del tecladito y mis dedos gordos. > > El may 1, 2015, a las 3:17 PM, Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au> escribió: > > Thanks León. > > Jus to check, are the changes meant to deal with the question I asked the other day and have been exchanging with Greg and Jordan about? Or is that being answered separately? > > Cheers, > > Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer > .au Domain Administration Ltd > T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 > E: ceo(a)auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au > > auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator > > On 2 May 2015, at 08:10, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> wrote: > > Hi all, > > An update from the lawyers with regards to UAs > > Best regards, > > > León > > Enviado desde el móvil. > Errores tipográficos son culpa del tecladito y mis dedos gordos. > > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> > Fecha: 1 de mayo de 2015, 3:03:54 PM PDT > Para: "ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org" <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> > Cc: "Sidley ICANN CCWG \(sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com\)" <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com> > Asunto: [Acct-Legal] Revised memo on Unincorporated Associations, with sample Articles of Association attached > Responder a: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org > > Dear Legal Sub-team: > > We attach a revised version of the unincorporated associations memo from April 23, 2015, which now has a description of the proposed uses of unincorporated associations in ICANN’s governance structure, and 2 new questions received since April 23, as well as some clarifying edits to prior answers to questions. We hope this is useful for the upcoming call, and perhaps as an annex to the CCWG Draft Proposal. A redline against the April 23 version will be provided shortly. > > Rosemary > > Rosemary E. Fei > Adler & Colvin > 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 > San Francisco, CA 94104 > 415/421-7555 (phone) > 415/421-0712 (fax) > rfei(a)adlercolvin.com > www.adlercolvin.com > > > Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email. > > <REVISED memo on unincorporated associations (00673349-4xA3536).docx> > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > > **************************************************************************************************** > This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. > If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us > immediately. > > **************************************************************************************************** > > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 > > > > > -- > Jordan Carter > > Chief Executive > InternetNZ > > 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) > jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz > Skype: jordancarter > > A better world through a better Internet > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5

3 4

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [Acct-Legal] Revised memo on Unincorporated Associations, with sample Articles of Association attached
by Chris Disspain May 1, 2015

May 1, 2015

Thanks León. Jus to check, are the changes meant to deal with the question I asked the other day and have been exchanging with Greg and Jordan about? Or is that being answered separately? Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo(a)auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator > On 2 May 2015, at 08:10, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> wrote: > > Hi all, > > An update from the lawyers with regards to UAs > > Best regards, > > > León > > Enviado desde el móvil. > Errores tipográficos son culpa del tecladito y mis dedos gordos. > > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > >> De: List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> >> Fecha: 1 de mayo de 2015, 3:03:54 PM PDT >> Para: "ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org" <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> >> Cc: "Sidley ICANN CCWG \(sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com\)" <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com> >> Asunto: [Acct-Legal] Revised memo on Unincorporated Associations, with sample Articles of Association attached >> Responder a: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org >> Dear Legal Sub-team: >> >> We attach a revised version of the unincorporated associations memo from April 23, 2015, which now has a description of the proposed uses of unincorporated associations in ICANN’s governance structure, and 2 new questions received since April 23, as well as some clarifying edits to prior answers to questions. We hope this is useful for the upcoming call, and perhaps as an annex to the CCWG Draft Proposal. A redline against the April 23 version will be provided shortly. >> >> Rosemary >> >> Rosemary E. Fei >> Adler & Colvin >> 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 >> San Francisco, CA 94104 >> 415/421-7555 (phone) >> 415/421-0712 (fax) >> rfei(a)adlercolvin.com >> www.adlercolvin.com >> >> >> Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email. > <REVISED memo on unincorporated associations (00673349-4xA3536).docx> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list >> Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

4 7

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Fwd: Revised memo on Unincorporated Associations, with sample Articles of Association attached
by McAuley, David May 1, 2015

May 1, 2015

I appreciate the points on this thread made by all and also look forward to the lawyers’ views at the top of the hour. Pending their insights, I tend to come down in support of the arguments Jordan and Greg made in that this is, overall, an exercise in making ICANN accountable once NTIA goes away. The SOs/ACs need not have a requirement that their “members” owe their allegiance to the UA entity over the community from which they sprang, unlike ICANN which is in the very position (I think) that Chris alludes to. And it seems to me there is counter-weight accountability within the communities vis-à-vis ICANN, not least by means of steep threshold requirements to take action. It is an important and well-presented issue, and now we can get some advice and pursue it further. David McAuley From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 7:19 PM To: 'ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org'; Chris Disspain Cc: CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Revised memo on Unincorporated Associations, with sample Articles of Association attached Agree generally with Greg. HOLLY J. GREGORY Partner Sidley Austin LLP +1.212.839.5853 holly.gregory(a)sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 7:11 PM To: Chris Disspain Cc: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>; CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Revised memo on Unincorporated Associations, with sample Articles of Association attached Chris, The UA is composed of the members of the SO/AC or some subset thereof, and the bylaws of the UA would dictate that it should follow the direction of the SO/AC and that the members of the UA have no leeway to deviate from that direction. If the SO/AC has all the same members as the UA, then there is no possibility that the UA could act differently from the SO/AC. So we would need to look at a situation where the members of the UA are a subset of the members of the SO/AC. This breaks down, most likely, to two scenarios. In the first scenario, a small group of members of the SO/AC are selected by the SO/AC to act as the members of the UA. I would assume, like most elected leaders and representatives, that those chosen would be relatively well-regarded, trustworthy, longstanding, active contributors to that SO/AC (consider,e.g., GNSO councilors or SO/AC leadership as examples), and that they would indicate that they understood the nature of the role as part of the selection process. As an example, let's assume that the members of the GNSO's UA were the Chair of the GNSO and the Chairs of each SG. Your hypothesis is that these 5 worthies would somehow "go rogue" and hijack the GNSO's UA, violate the bylaws of the UA, and refuse to follow directions from the GNSO (which would undoubtedly be quite public). In the second scenario, a large number (but not all) of the members of the (e.g.) GNSO become members of the GNSO's UA. As in the first scenario, they would acknowledge and agree as a condition of membership the nature of their role and the role of the UA. Again, your hypothesis is that this mass of GNSO members would somehow break from the GNSO and the SGs that they are members of, and act in violation of the UAs bylaws and their agreement to act in a limited capacity. In response (either way), the GNSO would have removed these "rogues" as members of the UA and replaced them with a crew that would act in accordance with the bylaws and the direction of the GNSO. In all likelihood, they would be removed from the GNSO as well. So your hypothetical further assumes that, in spite of this gross violation of the UA's bylaws and a public declaration that the members were being removed and replaced and that the invalid actions were being reversed, the other UAs (and/or ICANN) would continue to recognize the invalid actions of the rogue deposed members and not the actions of the replacement members acting in accordance with the public instructions of the GNSO. I suppose there is a technical possibility that this could occur, but I fail to see it as a practical possibility. Furthermore, if this has happened, ICANN and the multistakeholder model must have become so incredibly broken that an attempt to hijack UA would not be our most significant concerns. That said, it's appropriate to clarify the answer to your question from a legal standpoint as well as a practical one and we'll look to Sidley and Adler & Colvin to help us with that. Greg On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote: Thanks. I'll assume it attempts to. Here's what is says: "The control mechanism for an SO/AC over its unincorporated association could be essentially the same as whatever control mechanisms currently exist to ensure that the SO/ACs do what their participants collectively decide they should do. For example, if an SO/AC has a chair, that chair could be empowered and directed by the participants in the SO/AC to cause the unincorporated association of that SO/AC to act as directed by the SO/AC to exercise membership or designator rights. If the chair refused, that chair could presumably be subjected to discipline or removed and replaced under existing procedures within the SO or AC, just as if the chair had refused to take any other action as directed by the SO/AC. If existing control mechanisms within SO/ACs are insufficient, the SO/AC could modify them to address the weakness." I refer to the text in bold. I agree. However this does not answer the question, "and what power of enforcement over the UA does the SO or AC have if the UA refuses to act as directed or if it starts to act on its own behalf without direction?". This is and has been the point I have been making for the last day or so. Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111<tel:%2B61%203%208341%204111> | F: +61 3 8341 4112<tel:%2B61%203%208341%204112> E: ceo(a)auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.auda.org.au&d=AwMFa…> auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator On 2 May 2015, at 08:20, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: Hi Chris! I'm sorry but can't tell because I'm on the road and haven't had the chance to go through the document but I forwarded it because I didn't want to hold it. Cheers! León Enviado desde el móvil. Errores tipográficos son culpa del tecladito y mis dedos gordos. El may 1, 2015, a las 3:17 PM, Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> escribió: Thanks León. Jus to check, are the changes meant to deal with the question I asked the other day and have been exchanging with Greg and Jordan about? Or is that being answered separately? Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111<tel:%2B61%203%208341%204111> | F: +61 3 8341 4112<tel:%2B61%203%208341%204112> E: ceo(a)auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.auda.org.au&d=AwMFa…> auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator On 2 May 2015, at 08:10, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: Hi all, An update from the lawyers with regards to UAs Best regards, León Enviado desde el móvil. Errores tipográficos son culpa del tecladito y mis dedos gordos. Inicio del mensaje reenviado: De: List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>> Fecha: 1 de mayo de 2015, 3:03:54 PM PDT Para: "ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>" <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>> Cc: "Sidley ICANN CCWG \(sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>\)" <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>> Asunto: [Acct-Legal] Revised memo on Unincorporated Associations, with sample Articles of Association attached Responder a: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> Dear Legal Sub-team: We attach a revised version of the unincorporated associations memo from April 23, 2015, which now has a description of the proposed uses of unincorporated associations in ICANN’s governance structure, and 2 new questions received since April 23, as well as some clarifying edits to prior answers to questions. We hope this is useful for the upcoming call, and perhaps as an annex to the CCWG Draft Proposal. A redline against the April 23 version will be provided shortly. Rosemary Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555<tel:415%2F421-7555> (phone) 415/421-0712<tel:415%2F421-0712> (fax) rfei(a)adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> www.adlercolvin.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adlercolvin.com&d=A…> Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email. <REVISED memo on unincorporated associations (00673349-4xA3536).docx> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Fwd: Legal question
by Chris Disspain May 1, 2015

May 1, 2015

Hi León, Really? They are fairly simple questions. As I said, I can ask them on the call. Cheers, Chris On 21 Apr 2015, at 14:32 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> wrote: > Thanks Greg, > > I just want to note that for the short notice it is unlikely we will be able to have answers to feed the discussion in our call tomorrow. > > > Best regards, > > > León > >> El 20/04/2015, a las 23:22, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> escribió: >> >> I am forwarding Chris Disspain's email into the Legal Sub Team for further consideration. I will let our counsels respond, should the Legal Sub Team's discussion result in a referral of the questions to counsel. >> >> >> Greg Shatan >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au> >> Date: Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:03 AM >> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Legal question >> To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> >> >> >> Hello All, >> >> I’m not sure if this email should be addressed to the whole group, the legal sub-team or some other. Anyway, I have some questions that I would appreciate answers to from the CCWG’s lawyers. Happy to discuss on the upcoming CCWG call. >> >> Under the current structure of ICANN and its SOs and ACs >> >> 1. Is it correct that a bylaw saying that a combination of those SOs and ACs can veto the budget or veto a bylaw change can be drafted and put in to the bylaws? >> >> 2. Is it correct that were there to be such a bylaw and the SOs and ACs were to veto the budget or a bylaw change pursuant to that bylaw then the Board of ICANN could ignore that veto and that the SOs and ACs could not enforce the veto? >> >> 3. Is it correct that the veto bylaw could be drafted to require binding arbitration in the event that the Board refused to follow the SO/AC veto and if so would the Board be bound by the arbitration finding? >> >> 4. Is it correct that a Board spill bylaw could be inserted in to the bylaws and if triggered would be enforceable? >> >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Chris >> >> >> On 18 Apr 2015, at 14:50 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> I am forwarding this document from Counsel for your records and for its relevance for our overall work. >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> León >>> >>>> Inicio del mensaje reenviado: >>>> >>>> Para: "ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org" <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> >>>> Fecha: 17 de abril de 2015 22:21:36 GMT-5 >>>> De: List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> >>>> Asunto: [Acct-Legal] (no subject) >>>> Responder a: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Legal Sub-Team, Attached please find revisions to the chart comparing the member and designator approaches from Sidley and Adler & Colvin as requested. Please note that in our cover memo we have posed several questions for your consideration. We have also provided a discussion of some considerations regarding implementation of both approaches. We are look forward to discussing with CCWG next week. Kind regards, Holly >>>> >>>> HOLLY J. GREGORY >>>> Partner >>>> >>>> Sidley Austin LLP >>>> +1.212.839.5853 >>>> holly.gregory(a)sidley.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> **************************************************************************************************** >>>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. >>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us >>>> immediately. >>>> >>>> **************************************************************************************************** >>>> >>> <Legal Assessment_ Governance Chart.pdf> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list >>>> Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list >> Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 >

18 78

FW: [Acct-Legal] Revised memo on Unincorporated Associations, with sample Articles of Association attached
by Adam Peake May 1, 2015

May 1, 2015

Hi all, Please see the attached revised memo on Unincorporated Associations. Best, Adam From: "ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org" <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org" <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 6:03 PM To: "ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org" <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> Cc: "Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com)" <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com> Subject: [Acct-Legal] Revised memo on Unincorporated Associations, with sample Articles of Association attached Dear Legal Sub-team: We attach a revised version of the unincorporated associations memo from April 23, 2015, which now has a description of the proposed uses of unincorporated associations in ICANN¹s governance structure, and 2 new questions received since April 23, as well as some clarifying edits to prior answers to questions. We hope this is useful for the upcoming call, and perhaps as an annex to the CCWG Draft Proposal. A redline against the April 23 version will be provided shortly. Rosemary Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei(a)adlercolvin.com www.adlercolvin.com Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email.

1 0