April 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

A substantive question on Mission
by Andrew Sullivan April 7, 2016

April 7, 2016

Hi, I've been talking over the proposed bylaws text with my colleagues on the IAB IANA evolution program, and we're wondering about some things. Section 1.1.d is apparently the section that got added in order to deal with the CCWG worry that the various agreements already in place might not be in conformance with the clarified Mission. We think we get what most of these are for. 1.1.d.ii.A is there to ensure the registry and registrar agreements automatically conform to the Mission. 1.1.d.ii.B is there to ensure the ICANN-RIR agreement(s) and the ICANN-IETF agreement automatically conform. 1.1.d.ii.C covers the root zone maintainer. 1.1.d.ii.D covers the ICANN-PTI agreement. and 1.1.d.ii.F permits the renewals without those renewals being subject to IRP or any of the other new powers. But we have some questions: 1. We (the IAB) earlier wanted to frame the Mission partly in terms of the existing MoU, and the argument was that the Mission couldn't reasonably contain a reference to an outside document like that. Yet here are those references again. What's the difference that now makes this ok? 2. Several of these documents are not yet written or else haven't yet come into effect. How are we supposed to evaluate whether they're ok? For instance, item D is only about the Naming Function Contract, but the ICG proposal says that PTI is going to do all the IANA functions (two of them on subcontract from ICANN). Not only is item D not yet written, but as far as I know the counterparty (PTI, which is maybe going to be named something else) doesn't even exist yet. How can that agreement be evaluated? What if it is inconsistent with the ICANN-IETF MoU? This is going to be a fundamental bylaw, so it'll be rather hard to fix. 3. The CCWG's proposal, in Annex 05, at line 48, had a note to drafters that outlined the pieces that needed clarifications when the legal drafting happened. The clarifications seemed to be to ensure that certain agreements would be maintained. So what is the reason the strategic plan and operating plan have been included here in this sectiob 1.1.d? By including that, effectively anything at all -- no matter whether consistent with the Mission -- can be adopted by putting it into the strategic or operating plan (or a renewal of one of those plans, under clause F). It would really help us in our evaluation to understand why these provisions are needed and why they're consistent with the CCWG recommendations. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com

2 1

preparation for the call today
by Thomas Rickert April 7, 2016

April 7, 2016

Dear colleagues, with this note, we would like to help you to prepare for the meeting more efficiently. Bernie has kindly sent a document to the list with proposed responses and Mathieu has added an answer to question 25 a few hours ago, so you have all proposed answers in your inbox already. We had discussed the questions 1 to 27 during the last call. Except for questions 2 and 25, the answers are very straightforward. We will present and explain the answers during the call so you can safely focus on other areas of the document. Please take a look at questions 2 and 25. These are questions where we have tried to destill the essence of our discussion and prepare a response. You will hopefully agree that the proposed answers capture the views of the CCWG well. Then there is a third area of questions from number 28 onwards. We have proposed answers to 28 to 34 that should be uncontroversial so we hope to be able to finish the discussion on the list of questions from the legal teams quickly. Number 35 and onwards are topics from our group. You might wish to read that in preparation of the call. Thanks and tty soon. Thomas --

3 2

Proposed agenda for CCWG ACCT Review of Draft Bylaws Meeting | Thursday, 7 April 2016 @ 12:00 UTC
by MSSI Secretariat April 7, 2016

April 7, 2016

Dear All, In preparation for your call CCWG Accountability Review of Draft Bylaws Meeting<https://community.icann.org/x/WhWAAw> - Thursday, 7 April at 12:00 - 14:00 (time converter<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+Accountabilit…>), see below a proposed agenda: Proposed Agenda: 1. Opening Remarks 2. Second reading of question responses agreed on previous call 3. Resolution of remaining questions * 4. Next Steps 5. ICANN 56 - Helsinki 6. AOB * SAVE THE DATE, if needed, to complete Review of Bylaws: Saturday, 9 April @ 04:00 (AM)UTC Timeline reminder: 13 April - members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide feedback to legal teams Documents for call: See wiki page here<https://community.icann.org/x/LYMHAw> Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ Thank you! Kind regards, Brenda

4 5

A term that seems to need definition
by Andrew Sullivan April 7, 2016

April 7, 2016

Hi, As I mentioned in another mail, my colleagues on the IAB's IANA evolution program and I have been trying to go through the bylaws text. We've noticed that Section 4.3.j.ii says, "ICANN shall, in consultation with the global Internet community,…" I have looked quickly, and I can't find the exact place where in the Report this text might come from; but I didn't look that carefully. Anyway, since this is apparently a body ICANN is going to consult, it seems like there ought to be a definition of who is the "global Internet community", and I can't find one. (The same thing is repeated in m.ii on p 20.) In subsection n.i, the members of the global Internet community are to develop a process. I don't know how membership is determined there. 4.6.a.i has the same body offering guidance. The term appears in other places, but it usually seems to be a catch-all for "people on the Internet". On the whole, I don't think we believe it is a harmful term, but where there are specific things to be done it seems either a definition or a specific body or set of bodies might be better. (By the way, I'm still going through the document for nits and other such things, which I plan to send laterin a single roll-up. These individual mails are about things where we're not sure where the consistency with the proposal is, and we're trying to understand.) Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com

1 0

Comments on Article 1 of the draft bylaws
by Mueller, Milton L April 6, 2016

April 6, 2016

In general, the Mission, Core Values and Commitments bylaw language reflect the concerns of the CCWG. There are three major exceptions/problems. One is the section on renewals [Section 1.1, (d) (ii) F], the other two are Appendices G1 and G2. Additionally, I flag some unclear, awkward or redundant wording that needs to be fixed. Section 1.1 (d) (ii) F "any renewals of agreements described in subsections (A)-(D) pursuant to their terms and conditions for renewal." This is an unacceptable deviation from the agreement we had regarding grandfathering. The idea was that _existing_ agreements would not be constrained by the new mission limitations, but that anything in the future would be subject to the new mission limitations. By extending existing exceptions or ambiguities into the future via renewals, we are making the new mission limitations practically irrelevant. APPENDICES G1 and G2 The items in Appendix G are carve-outs from the mission limitations. That is, they expressly authorize certain actions as authorized and thus not challengable under the mission limitations. Therefore, we need to be extremely careful about what is included there. G1 refers to registrars, G2 to registries. In G1, the bullet point on resolution of disputes exempts any and all ICANN policies regarding the USE of domain names. This exemption is too broad. Furthermore, its meaning is unclear. I do not know what it means to say that dispute resolution is limited to disputes "regarding the registration of domain names (as opposed to the use of such domain names" and then to add "but including where such policies take into account use of the domain names)." The meaning is unclear but we suspect it will be construed as a blanket exemption for imposing on registrars any policies regarding how domains are used, which could include content. I note that Appendix G2 applicable to registries does not contain this language. We should get rid of it in G1 also. The bullet point on cross-ownership restrictions needs to make it clear that restrictions are allowed only insofar as cross ownership affects the core values of security, stability or competition. That is, I see no basis for giving ICANN or the community a blanket right to restrict cross-ownership for any reason they want; such restrictions should only be used if they are a means to the end of promoting or preserving the mission or other core values, such as security, stability or competition. The best option would be to delete this part of the G! and G2 and make all cross-ownership policies subject to a mission challenge. Cross ownership policies that demonstrably advance the core values of competition, security, stability, etc. should have no trouble passing this test; cross-ownership limitations that do not clearly meet this test should be subject to challenge. The bullet points on "reservation of registered names" MUST be conditioned on respect for freedom of expression rights. I have no trouble with leaving names reservations in as a general exemption from mission challenges, but only if that power, which obviously can be abused or over-extended, is limited by concerns about openness, freedom and innovation on the Internet. Along these lines, we need to clarify the term "intellectual property" to say "legally recognized intellectual property rights." Other Substantive issues ------------------------------ Section 1.1 (a) (iii) "Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol numbers and Autonomous System numbers." I thought IANA and IETF, not ICANN, do this. ICANN does it only insofar as it is contracted to be the IFO. Does this belong here? Looking forward to the comments of numbers and protocol communities here. Section 1.2 (a) (vi) Please delete the words "that enhance ICANN's effectiveness." I don't see why these words are needed. They seem to undercut or make conditional the clear meaning of the first part of the sentence, which states that ICANN is accountable to its community through the mechanisms defined in the bylaws. Section 1.2 (b) (vi) modify the sentence to read: "governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy IN THEIR OWN JURISDICTION." This is just a legal fact. Governments have no legal mandate for global public policy. Clarity, copy editing and redundancy issues: ---------------------------------------------------- Section 1.1 (a) (i), first bullet point: it says "facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability". No reason to have an "and/or" here, it should just be "and". We want them all, and in other parts of the bylaws where substantially the same list exists there is an "and." Section 1.1 (a) (i), second bullet point: "That are developed through a bottom-up consensus-based multistakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique names systems." This sentence should end at "multistakeholder process." The addition of "and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique names systems" is redundant, as it is already stated in the first bullet point. Section 1.2 (a) (i) Needlessly awkward and confusing wording. Why not just say "Administer the DNS in a way that preserves and enhances its operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience and openness." ? Dr. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org

4 7

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [bylaws-coord] Comments on Article 1 of the draft bylaws
by Burr, Becky April 6, 2016

April 6, 2016

Milton, appendix G1 and G2 should be taken from the Picket Fence provisions of the Registry and Registrar, virtually word for word. (I will check again to make sure that is still true.) Those have been in place since the beginning of ICANN time. I do not see that we have any mandate to modify those documents. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz> On 4/6/16, 12:36 PM, "Mueller, Milton L via bylaws-coord" <bylaws-coord(a)icann.org> wrote: >In general, the Mission, Core Values and Commitments bylaw language >reflect the concerns of the CCWG. There are three major >exceptions/problems. One is the section on renewals [Section 1.1, (d) >(ii) F], the other two are Appendices G1 and G2. Additionally, I flag >some unclear, awkward or redundant wording that needs to be fixed. > > >Section 1.1 (d) (ii) F > >"any renewals of agreements described in subsections (A)-(D) pursuant to >their terms and conditions for renewal." This is an unacceptable >deviation from the agreement we had regarding grandfathering. The idea >was that _existing_ agreements would not be constrained by the new >mission limitations, but that anything in the future would be subject to >the new mission limitations. By extending existing exceptions or >ambiguities into the future via renewals, we are making the new mission >limitations practically irrelevant. > >APPENDICES G1 and G2 > >The items in Appendix G are carve-outs from the mission limitations. That >is, they expressly authorize certain actions as authorized and thus not >challengable under the mission limitations. Therefore, we need to be >extremely careful about what is included there. G1 refers to registrars, >G2 to registries. > >In G1, the bullet point on resolution of disputes exempts any and all >ICANN policies regarding the USE of domain names. This exemption is too >broad. Furthermore, its meaning is unclear. I do not know what it means >to say that dispute resolution is limited to disputes "regarding the >registration of domain names (as opposed to the use of such domain names" >and then to add "but including where such policies take into account use >of the domain names)." The meaning is unclear but we suspect it will be >construed as a blanket exemption for imposing on registrars any policies >regarding how domains are used, which could include content. I note that >Appendix G2 applicable to registries does not contain this language. We >should get rid of it in G1 also. > >The bullet point on cross-ownership restrictions needs to make it clear >that restrictions are allowed only insofar as cross ownership affects the >core values of security, stability or competition. That is, I see no >basis for giving ICANN or the community a blanket right to restrict >cross-ownership for any reason they want; such restrictions should only >be used if they are a means to the end of promoting or preserving the >mission or other core values, such as security, stability or competition. >The best option would be to delete this part of the G! and G2 and make >all cross-ownership policies subject to a mission challenge. Cross >ownership policies that demonstrably advance the core values of >competition, security, stability, etc. should have no trouble passing >this test; cross-ownership limitations that do not clearly meet this test >should be subject to challenge. > >The bullet points on "reservation of registered names" MUST be >conditioned on respect for freedom of expression rights. I have no >trouble with leaving names reservations in as a general exemption from >mission challenges, but only if that power, which obviously can be abused >or over-extended, is limited by concerns about openness, freedom and >innovation on the Internet. Along these lines, we need to clarify the >term "intellectual property" to say "legally recognized intellectual >property rights." > >Other Substantive issues >------------------------------ > >Section 1.1 (a) (iii) >"Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of >Internet Protocol numbers and Autonomous System numbers." I thought IANA >and IETF, not ICANN, do this. ICANN does it only insofar as it is >contracted to be the IFO. Does this belong here? Looking forward to the >comments of numbers and protocol communities here. > >Section 1.2 (a) (vi) >Please delete the words "that enhance ICANN's effectiveness." I don't see >why these words are needed. They seem to undercut or make conditional the >clear meaning of the first part of the sentence, which states that ICANN >is accountable to its community through the mechanisms defined in the >bylaws. > >Section 1.2 (b) (vi) >modify the sentence to read: "governments and public authorities are >responsible for public policy IN THEIR OWN JURISDICTION." This is just a >legal fact. Governments have no legal mandate for global public policy. > >Clarity, copy editing and redundancy issues: >---------------------------------------------------- > >Section 1.1 (a) (i), first bullet point: >it says "facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security >and/or stability". No reason to have an "and/or" here, it should just be >"and". We want them all, and in other parts of the bylaws where >substantially the same list exists there is an "and." > >Section 1.1 (a) (i), second bullet point: >"That are developed through a bottom-up consensus-based multistakeholder >process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the >Internet's unique names systems." This sentence should end at >"multistakeholder process." The addition of "and designed to ensure the >stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique names systems" is >redundant, as it is already stated in the first bullet point. > >Section 1.2 (a) (i) >Needlessly awkward and confusing wording. Why not just say "Administer >the DNS in a way that preserves and enhances its operational stability, >reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience and openness." >? > > >Dr. Milton L Mueller >Professor, School of Public Policy >Georgia Institute of Technology > >Internet Governance Project >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__internetgovernance.org >&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WD >DkMr4k&m=6y7xts5zuWvJvM2CTAybA55knVr-A2c5abJQknCChOw&s=i7V5COaEo7mrjH_DaPS >v9acsyBdmeej9oW1QECKPjBE&e= > >_______________________________________________ >bylaws-coord mailing list >bylaws-coord(a)icann.org >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ >listinfo_bylaws-2Dcoord&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_G >Rlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=6y7xts5zuWvJvM2CTAybA55knVr-A2c5abJQknCChO >w&s=vkI6X_ebl4XOgv_DM_Zox7W46ER4D_K7tkJ_vo2QGV0&e=

2 1

Notes-Recordings-Transcript link for CCWG Accountability "Review of Draft Bylaws" Meeting - 5 April 2016
by MSSI Secretariat April 6, 2016

April 6, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability "Review of Draft Bylaws" Meeting - 5 April 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/WhWAAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Notes These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. 1. Opening remarks (MW) * Need to recognize the outstanding effort by all legal teams which have produced a very high quality document. * Priority now is to answer the lawyer questions. 2. Update from lawyers on work to date (Holly Gregory) * History leading up to here * ICANN legal produced an initial draft * All lawyers reviewed in Los Angeles for 3 days * Intensive since there with great collaboration * Draft is a work in process * Produced a rough map of concordance bet proposal and draft * We expect to be able to certify in time. 3. Timeline (TR) * Presentation of the document on timeline and working method. Leadership will suggest answers to certain questions 4. Response lawyer questions * MW Question 1 - Defining Root Zone or removing. BBurr suggests removing it. Chat supports removing. * MW Question 2 - gTLD Registry Agreement - Grandfathering of Registry and Registrar Agreements even if renewed. Grandfathering can continue in new forms if they have not been replaced. BBurr explanation. Inclination to confirm both questions but the leadership will provide a more detailed rationale for this on the list by the next meeting. * MW Question 3 - RFR posting of discussions at request of plaintiff - BBurr supports recommendation. This was not considered in the report and needs to be considered further and put up for discussion at the next meeting. * MW Question 4 - AOC what is included in the Bylaws and not - SDB presentation of the issue. SDB will circulate his proposed response to the list * MW Question 5 - SSR reviews - need a reference to the security plan? Awaiting response from ICANN. * MW Question 6 - Board - how to obtain consent from the empowered community - Will circulate a rationale of the Jordan approach to the list. * MW Question 7 - Interim Board - Proposal was silent on how to consult with the community - JCarter supports proposal. Needs to be lightweight - will circulate to the list. * MW Question 25 - GAC advice - SDB explanation - Recommend using Entirely or almost entirely. MH propose Significantly, Mostly etc. MW Complex question - the leadership will propose text for the next meeting. * MW Question 26 - DP providing notice - just adding some transparency - accept recommendation. * TR Question 27 - Fundamental Bylaws - Agree with recommendation. * TR - Remaining questions - Leadership will post proposed answers to the list to facilitate and expedite discussions on the next call. 5. Update on ICANN Budget Discussion (if time permits) * Time did not allow for this to be presented or discussed. 6. AOB * KA - GAC was upset at Congressional testimony. * AG - Question 6 - Asked for any other changes to proposal.

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version - SCWG
by Seun Ojedeji April 5, 2016

April 5, 2016

Hello, I guess the other main issue which I notice in Chris's point is that unless the majority gauge is observed across the various SO/AC represented in the SCWG, we might find ourselves in a situation where the separation decision would be comfortably made by just the representatives of registries and registrars. Hopefully that is not the intent of the proposal. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 5 Apr 2016 8:33 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: > I think there are two ways of looking at this: > > 1. Requiring consensus makes it harder to do separation. As > Christopher says, that is a big step so maybe it should be harder. That is > in essence why I opposed only requiring a simple majority of those present > in a meeting instead of a simple majority of all members whether they are > in attendance or not. > > 2. Requiring consensus also makes it easier for a small group to > essentially veto a separation recommendation. If a small group of the > members oppose a separation while a strong majority favor it, simply by > preventing consensus, separation could be stopped. > > > > I don’t know where I come out on this but I definitely we should weigh > both points before deciding. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Wilkinson > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 05, 2016 2:41 PM > *To:* accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Accountability > *Cc:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org IANA > *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW > ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version - SCWG > *Importance:* High > > > > Good evening: > > > > With reference to the Sidley draft of April 2, 2016 ("Questions and > Clarifications for Bylaws Coordination Group"), I wish to make a specific > comment relating to Question 22 referring to Section 19 of the draft Bylaws > concerning the SCWG ("Separation Cross Community Working Group".) > > > > Section 19.5 addresses the Composition of the SCWG and the voting rights > of its members and liaisons. > > > > Section 19.7 (a) addresses the SCWG decision-making procedure. > > > > During the CWG conference call on April 4, Sidley raised the issue of how > to define the majority of the SCWG (Section 19.7(a)) in the absence of a > consensus. > > The bar of 50+1% was proposed. (Question 22.) > > > > *I submit that this bar is far too low, and that the general principle of > consensus must be maintained.* > > > > Section 19.5 of the draft Bylaws provides for SCWG to be composed of 13 > voting members, 5 non voting liaisons and unlimited other participants. > Among the voting members, GNSO and the ccTLDs would hold 9 votes; more than > a majority of 7. > > > > However, eventual separation of the IANA/PTI function from ICANN would > have far reaching implications for many stakeholders which go well beyond > the specific interests of DNS Registries and Registrars. > > > > It would not be appropriate for the representatives of the Registries and > Registrars to be able to determine a separation decision, acting alone, > absent consensus in the SCWG. If the proposed composition and voting rights > in an SCWG are maintained, it is absolutely essential that the SCWG act by > consensus and not by a majority vote. > > > > Regards > > > > Christopher Wilkinson > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > *From: *Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr> > > *Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April > 2016 version* > > *Date: *3 Apr 2016 14:16:21 GMT+02:00 > > *To: *CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > In anticipation of our calls this week, please find below a note from the > lawyers group, the draft bylaws as well as an issue list. > > > > It is important to read the lawyers notes as they quite efficiently > describe the context and status of the work. Please review them for any > process related question. > > > > The purpose of our calls this week will be to address the issue list > questions (questions 1-7 & 25-34 are for the CCWG, the others for CWG). > > > > Should any other issue be added to the list based on your respective > reviews, please raise your questions on the list for transparency. > > > > Best regards, > > Mathieu > > --------------- > > Depuis mon mobile, d�sol� pour le style > > > D�but du message transf�r� : > > *Exp**�**diteur:* John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord <bylaws-coord(a)icann.org> > *Date:* 3 avril 2016 13:16:28 UTC+2 > *Destinataire:* bylaws-coord(a)icann.org > *Cc:* "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan(a)sidley.com>, "Cc: Zagorin, Janet S." < > jzagorin(a)sidley.com>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton(a)sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler < > ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com>, > "Mohan, Vivek" <vivek.mohan(a)sidley.com>, "Clark, Michael A." < > mclark(a)sidley.com>, "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher(a)sidley.com>, Sidley ICANN > CCWG <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com>, "Kerry, Cameron" <ckerry(a)sidley.com>, > "McNicholas, Edward R." <emcnicholas(a)sidley.com>, Daniel Halloran < > daniel.halloran(a)icann.org>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos(a)icann.org>, > "Boelter, Jessica C.K." <jboelter(a)sidley.com>, "Fuller, Miles" < > wfuller(a)sidley.com>, "Tam, Tennie H." <tennie.tam(a)sidley.com> > *Objet:* *[bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version* > *R**�**pondre * *�**:* John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey(a)icann.org> > > Dear Bylaws Coordination Group, > > Please find attached a document � DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr) (�DRAFT > BYLAWS�) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the last full > draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to provide another > full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2 April. The DRAFT > BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the legal drafting > group. There is also an Issue List attached, which are a set of additional > questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws Coordination Group. > > We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG > colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week > > *Recent Work* � During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made > up of Sidley�s team, Adler�s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and > worked through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN > Bylaws. Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws > Coordination Group during this two-week period asking questions and > incorporating that feedback into the new draft. There is likely to be the > need for some additional discussions as we work toward a public comment > version of the new ICANN bylaws. > > *More Work to Do* � There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in > identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that > are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions, > and polishing the draft before publication for public comment. The legal > teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and > comments during this period. > > *Legal Teams have not yet **�certified**�* � Since a) the Bylaws > Coordination Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these > DRAFT BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is > still review and polishing to be done by the legal teams � the legal > teams have not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the > recommendations within the Proposals. > > As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including > receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week > before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version > for Public Comment > > *Next Steps* � > > 1) *Now until 13 April* � members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination > Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide > feedback to legal teams; > > 2) *Now until 18 April*, (with particular focus during week of 13-18 > April) � legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with > the Bylaws Drafting Group; > > 3) *20 April* � posting date for public comment period for new proposed > bylaws � with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets > the proposal recommendations. > > �� > > As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days, > to get ICANN�s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these > important changes. > > We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them > in the spirit that they are offered� to help all of us to be able to > collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way > possible � to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community > empowered ICANN. > > John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei > > _____________________ > > ____________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > bylaws-coord mailing list > bylaws-coord(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > >

1 0

Proposed agenda for CCWG ACCT Review of Draft Bylaws Meeting | 5 April 2016 @ 19:00 UTC
by MSSI Secretariat April 5, 2016

April 5, 2016

Dear All, In preparation for your call CCWG Accountability Review of Draft Bylaws Meeting<https://community.icann.org/x/WhWAAw> - Tuesday, 5 April 2016 at 19:00-21:00 UTC (time converter<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+Accountabilit…>), see below a proposed agenda: Proposed Agenda: 1. Opening remarks 2. Update from lawyers on work to date 3. Timeline 4. Response lawyer questions 5. Update on ICANN Budget Discussion (if time permits) 6. AOB Documents for call: See wiki page here<https://community.icann.org/x/LYMHAw> Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ Thank you! Kind regards, Brenda

3 2

CCWG - Draft Timeline
by Bernard Turcotte April 5, 2016

April 5, 2016

1 0