May 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' Comments on CCWG Comments on Draft New ICANN Bylaws
by Alan Greenberg May 8, 2016

May 8, 2016

Strongly support Jordan regarding item 10. Alan At 08/05/2016 12:03 AM, Jordan Carter wrote: >Thanks Holly, Rosemary, for this. > >In respect of your substantive comments I agree >with you regarding comment 9 (which I think >arose from the complexity of the document, as >not all "parts" of the carve out are referenced >in all places - rightly from a drafting point of >view, but a little hard to follow for us non-lawyers), and comment 10 too. > >On comment 10 however, I'd like to be clear that >the reason a rationale is presented is as a >matter of explanation. The decisional process >which follows is not reliant on that explanation >or rationale being judged against non-existent >objective criteria. The presentation of >rationale is simply so that DPs have to go on >the record saying why they are acting as they are. > >Can you please assure me and us that the draft >bylaws do not create a situation where anything >published as a rationale can be used to block or >interfere with the rights of decisional >participants to exercise their powers? (The >exception is where the budget related powers are >being used, as it is clearly discernable whether >or not an issue was raised in the public engagement process or not.) > >Many thanks >Jordan > > >On 8 May 2016 at 05:27, Grapsas, Rebecca ><<mailto:rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com>rebecca.grapsas(a)sidley.com> wrote: >Holly Gregory asked that I forward the email >below. Please post to the CCWG and BCG lists on her behalf. > > >Dear CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs, Members, Participants, and ICANN Staff, > >Attached please find comments from Sidley and >Adler on the CCWGâs Comments on Draft New >ICANN Bylaws (tracked changes in Word and PDF). > >Please note that we have serious concerns around >comments 9 and 10 and believe that, as currently >stated, they are based on misreadings of the >draft Bylaws in the relation to the CCWG Proposal. > >Kind regards, > >Holly and Rosemary > >HOLLY J. GREGORY >Partner and Co-Chair >Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Group > >Sidley Austin LLP >787 Seventh Avenue >New York, NY 10019 ><tel:%2B1%20212%20839%205853>+1 212 839 5853 ><mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>holly.gregory(a)sidley.com >www.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. >**************************************************************************************************** >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > >-- >Jordan Carter > >Chief Executive >InternetNZ > >+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) | Skype: jordancarter ><mailto:jordan@InternetNZ.net.nz>jordan(a)InternetNZ.net.nz | www.InternetNZ.nz > >A better world through a better Internet > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:pSSf+q266taIYAsTUKNqwQjLamEkeQp5cvjnT3JdYXC6IOAegrDtMyzQWthZdn/zgvC+bDNW0s5e/G6WQzGbmXrQpLvmM27FOAOmnIHeK8tSm5lLOUDqA9DkRueOTzt1vNGbhdC+1dG1+o2Amlf4sYHYGRd3lP8KYdancioDzBs= > >_______________________________________________ >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] Fwd: Human Rights Transition Provision: Bylaws Section 27.3(a)
by Seun Ojedeji May 6, 2016

May 6, 2016

Greg, my reference was bullet point 6 of paragraph 28 and not 27. I have never written that high standard be applied; I have always quoted what the report clearly stated, which is that approval of CO was required for the FoI but you seem to counter that with intent and a reference and I have told you was rather referring to board's approval process(bullet6 para28). By the way, the phrase "including Chartering Organizations’ approval" was repeated 3 times in that report. It's not just a coincidence. They say "iron sharpen iron" as I am not a lawyer, I obviously cannot convince you on this one ;-). At this point, I will rest my case since irrespective of what I say and the references I provide in the report, you counter it with intent and what was said. I hope my point has been duly noted by the Co-Chairs, irrespective of route we take it should be based on the decision of the group as per the charter. Apologies in advance for the upcoming meeting (will join if I can) Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 2 May 2016 11:08 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: I disagree. Paragraph 6, which was repeated twice more in the Proposal, was not merely a summary of the bylaw language. It stated the *intent* behind the "bylaw" language. I don't think any of the Proposal is to "taken lightly," and it was not our intent that the "draft bylaw" language have any special place in indicating the intent of the CCWG vs. the rest of the text of the proposal. We also recognized that the CCWG's attempts to draft legally sufficient text were not sufficient, which is why paragraph 23 is introduced by a statement (which you chose not to quote) that the recommendation is to "Include a Bylaw with the following *intent* in Work Stream 1 recommendations" [emphasis added], which clearly indicates that the text of the "draft bylaw" sections in our proposal was not intended to be adopted verbatim. The Proposal needs to be read as a whole, and it's incorrect to assume that greater weight should be given to language in a "bylaws" section. Nothing you have put forward even touches on whether the review by the Chartering Organizations was going to be done to a unique and higher standard, much less states it "clearly and unequivocally." So, no, there's nothing here that shows that the CCWG wanted to require a higher threshold from the Chartering Organizations than is used for all the rest of the work of the CCWG. Finally, if there was "quite a huge debate during the discussion" on this particular point, show me in the transcripts, recordings or meeting notes. Bullet point 6 of paragraph 27 confirms nothing of the sort -- it just simply parrots the parenthetical. I think we can all agree that there was no debate on this particular point, and that the reference to "Chartering Organizations' approval" was not intended to create a special threshold just for the FOI, and that any contention otherwise is simply a misreading of the CCWG Proposal. I hope that is "clear and unequivocal" enough. On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I think we can just agree that paragraph 6(which you referenced) poorly > summarised paragraph 23, a section of which I quote below : > > "...This Bylaw provision will not enter into force until (1) a Framework > of > Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) is developed by the > CCWG-Accountability as a > consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 (including Chartering > Organizations’ approval) > and (2) the FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the same process > and criteria it has > committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations.” > > OR the summary was indeed referring to the approval process to be used by > the board as I think that was quite a huge debate during the discussion and > bullet point 6 of paragraph 28 of the report confirms that. Below: > > "Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations > are carried out once an FOI-HR is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a > consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 *(including Chartering > Organizations’ approval)* and the *FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board > using the same process and criteria it has committed to use to consider the > Work Stream 1 recommendations*" > > Pay attention to the sections stared! Again that same bullet point > repeated the phrase "(including Chartering Organizations’ approval)". You > may also want to note that paragraph 23 was actually a proposed bylaw text > and not just one of those texts that can be taken lightly. > > I hope that is "clear and unequivocal" enough > > Regards > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > On 2 May 2016 9:20 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I am also referring to what we [said/wrote]* in the report, which is the > following: > > "The proposed draft Bylaw also clarifies that no IRP challenges can be > made on the grounds of this Bylaw until a Framework of Interpretation on > Human Rights (FOI-HR) is developed and approved as part of Work Stream 2 > activities. It further clarifies that *acceptance of the **FOI**-HR will > require the same process as for Work Stream 1 recommendations* (as agreed > for all Work Stream 2 recommendations)." > > We said ... er sorry .. wrote this *three* times in the report, and we > need to give this effect. The language in the draft circulated for comment > is inconsistent with this statement, to the extent that it appears to > require the positive approval of all Chartering Organizations, which would > be a *different* process than the one used for Work Stream 1 > recommendations. As such, the draft needs to be corrected. > > I was on the calls and email exchanges when the parenthetical about the > chartering organizations was inserted in the "bylaws" language in the > Proposal. All that was meant by the insertion was to clarify that the FoI > did not go straight from Working Group approval to the Board, but had to be > reviewed by the Chartering Organizations first, just as the WS1 > recommendations were reviewed. There was never any discussion or intent to > imply that a higher standard of approval was needed for the FoI vs. all > other CCWG recommendations. > > If anyone can find a clear and unequivocal statement that shows the CCWG > meant to have a heightened standard for the FoI, I'll reconsider my view. > However, I'm confident there is no such statement. We spent many, many > hours of discussing and drafting sections on levels of approval for the > Empowered Community and relating to levels of approval within the GAC. As > such, it defies logic to claim that the simple insertion of a > parenthetical, without any specific discussion or explanation of a > heightened standard, created a requirement for unanimous and/or positive > approval. > > Greg > > ______ > * You are inventing a dichotomy where there is none. In either case, I > was referring to the report, not to some verbal utterance. I'm sorry if my > somewhat colloquial use of "said" confused you. It's perfectly acceptable > to use "said" to refer to a written document, at least in everyday usage. > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Depends on how you are interpreting the word "bundle"; the WS1 was >> presented as a single document, while some COs decided to approve/respond >> recommendation by recommendation, others approved the document as a whole. >> Perhaps a simple application of the report(if you want to avoid round trips >> proposed in the report without distorting the intent) will be to highlight >> FoI as a single recommendation in WS2 which gives the COs the option to >> approve/reject it out rightly and then the CCWG can determine what to do >> with the FoI based on the outcome of the COs approval process. >> >> On your second point, at this juncture I am not talking about what we >> said but rather about what we WROTE in the report, which is what anyone who >> have not followed the process would rely upon. So do you want to reflect >> "what we said" or "what we wrote" either of them is fine by me but we >> should be clear on the path we have chosen, knowing it's implications as >> well. >> >> Regards >> >> Sent from my LG G4 >> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >> On 2 May 2016 3:51 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> At no point did we say that the FoI would be bundled with other WS2 >>> recommendations as a complete package. Indeed, we've never said that any >>> of the WS2 projects had to be bundled with others. >>> >>> At no point did we say that there would be a special process for >>> approving the FoI. It should be the same as WS1, which contemplates a >>> review by the Chartering Organizations, and then allows the CCWG to forward >>> recommendation to the Board even if less than all of the COs approve of the >>> recommendation. >>> >>> As long as we can find ways to reflect that clearly, we will be carrying >>> out the intent of the Proposal. >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Thomas, >>>> >>>> If I process this correctly, it implies approval of the FoI will be >>>> done based on ratification process in the CCWG charter, which is different >>>> from approval of the whole WS2 package as per the charter. >>>> >>>> If that is it, then I will say it's somewhat closer to what was >>>> proposed in the report (even though the report did not mention that CO >>>> ratification of FoI is based on the charter). >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>> On 2 May 2016 3:24 p.m., "Thomas Rickert" <thomas(a)rickert.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> Tijani has proposed a solution at the end of his latest e-mail: >>>>> >>>>> I understand that the first proposal made the approval of all the >>>>> chartering organizations necessary, The modification should keep the >>>>> reference to the ratification of the chartering organizations and add "as >>>>> defined in the CCWG charter“. >>>>> >>>>> Would that be a way forward? >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Thomas >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am 02.05.2016 um 16:19 schrieb Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com>: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Niels, >>>>> >>>>> I think we may just be playing around with words here, definitely you >>>>> understand Tijani's concern ;-). Let me attempt to spell out(even though I >>>>> have done this before) my understanding of the report which I must say is >>>>> obvious: >>>>> >>>>> 1. The report clearly used the phrase "...*including* approval of >>>>> chartering organisations" >>>>> >>>>> 2. Equating that to mean that it's equivalent to the CO approval >>>>> within CCWG may be out of order because as per the charter irrespective of >>>>> number of support from CO, the package goes to board for approval. >>>>> >>>>> 3. The intent of item 2 above is not the same thing as item 1; What I >>>>> understand is that the FoI as a critical document it is needs to be >>>>> developed during WS2, approved by the CO and incoporated into the WS2 >>>>> proposal which is then sent to COs for approval as a complete package. >>>>> >>>>> That said, i will again say that if the goal is to reflect what was >>>>> written in the report then we are out of order. However we may just agree >>>>> that what we have done is correcting a *mistake* in the report through the >>>>> bylaw. In that case, we should present it as such and not on claims that >>>>> the report did not say approval of CO is required. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>>> On 2 May 2016 9:40 a.m., "Niels ten Oever" <lists(a)nielstenoever.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Tijani, >>>>>> >>>>>> But the chartering organizations are mentioned in the charter of the >>>>>> CCWG, so am not sure if I understand your concern. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Niels >>>>>> >>>>>> On 05/02/2016 10:22 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: >>>>>> > Hi Niels, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > The last modification of the bylaws proposed by the lawyers didn’t >>>>>> make >>>>>> > any reference to the chartering organizations approval while it is >>>>>> > clearly mentioned in the CCWG last proposal ratified by the >>>>>> chartering >>>>>> > organizations. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Have a nice day >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> > *Tijani BEN JEMAA* >>>>>> > Executive Director >>>>>> > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) >>>>>> > Phone: +216 98 330 114 >>>>>> > +216 52 385 114 >>>>>> > >>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> Le 2 mai 2016 à 09:11, Niels ten Oever <lists(a)nielstenoever.net >>>>>> >> <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> a écrit : >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Dear Tijani and Kavouss, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Could you please indicate where the proposed text is not >>>>>> consistent with >>>>>> >> the report? Concrete references would be helpful for me to better >>>>>> >> understand your point. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Thanks in advance, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Niels >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> On 05/02/2016 09:38 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>>>> >>> Tijani +1 >>>>>> >>> I fully agree with Tijani >>>>>> >>> People misuse the opportunity to make modifications that were not >>>>>> agreed >>>>>> >>> during the lkast 16 months >>>>>> >>> NO CHANGE NO MODIFICATIONS. >>>>>> >>> During the WSIS I WILL tell everybody that there is no >>>>>> supervision nor >>>>>> >>> control on what we have agreed and the people will make whatever >>>>>> change >>>>>> >>> they wish without the agreements of the others >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> KAVOUSS >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> 2016-05-02 8:14 GMT+02:00 Tijani BEN JEMAA < >>>>>> tijani.benjemaa(a)topnet.tn >>>>>> >>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> >>>>>> >>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>>: >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Mathieu and all, >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> The modification proposed doesn’t reflect the CCWG last >>>>>> proposal >>>>>> >>> approved by the chartering organization. I don’t think we are >>>>>> >>> allowed to write bylaws that are not the exact interpretation >>>>>> of the >>>>>> >>> approved document that had the CCWG consensus and the charting >>>>>> >>> organizations ratification. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>> *Tijani BEN JEMAA* >>>>>> >>> Executive Director >>>>>> >>> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) >>>>>> >>> Phone: +216 98 330 114 >>>>>> >>> +216 52 385 114 >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> Le 2 mai 2016 à 04:23, Kavouss Arasteh < >>>>>> kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> a écrit : >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Mathieu, >>>>>> >>>> Tks >>>>>> >>>> Pls NOTE MY SERIOUS OBJECTIONS to: >>>>>> >>>> 1.NOT MENTIONING REFERNCE TO THE APPROVAL OF CHARTERING >>>>>> >>>> ORGANIZATIONBS in HR >>>>>> >>>> 2. GIVE GIVE A BLANKET AGREEMENT TO THE DOCUMENTS WHICH YET >>>>>> TO BE >>>>>> >>>> DRAFTED. >>>>>> >>>> 3. Making so many changes to the Third proposals . We must >>>>>> avoid >>>>>> >>>> having a new proposal >>>>>> >>>> Kavouss >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> 2016-05-01 22:42 GMT+02:00 Mathieu Weill < >>>>>> mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Please find below for your consideration some suggestions >>>>>> from >>>>>> >>>> our lawyers for clarification of the bylaw language >>>>>> regarding >>>>>> >>>> the Human rights FoI. This follows our request during the >>>>>> >>>> previous call. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Mathieu Weill >>>>>> >>>> --------------- >>>>>> >>>> Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Début du message transféré : >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> *Expéditeur:* "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> >>>>>> >>>>> *Date:* 1 mai 2016 19:10:53 UTC+2 >>>>>> >>>>> *Destinataire:* "'Mathieu Weill'" < >>>>>> mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, "'Thomas Rickert'" >>>>>> >>>>> <thomas(a)rickert.net >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León >>>>>> Felipe >>>>>> >>>>> Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "bylaws-coord(a)icann.org >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>" <bylaws-coord(a)icann.org >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>> >>>>>> >>>>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, "Rosemary E. Fei" >>>>>> >>>>> <rfei(a)adlercolvin.com >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>>, >>>>>> >>>>> "ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>" >>>>>> >>>>> <ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, >>>>>> >>>>> Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, >>>>>> >>>>> "Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org <mailto: >>>>>> Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>" >>>>>> >>>>> <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> <mailto: >>>>>> Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org>> >>>>>> >>>>> *Objet:* *Human Rights Transition Provision: Bylaws >>>>>> Section >>>>>> >>>>> 27.3(a)* >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Dear Co-Chairs and Bylaws Coordinating Group: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> On the CCWG call last week, there was a discussion of the >>>>>> >>>>> Bylaws language regarding the transition provision on >>>>>> Human >>>>>> >>>>> Rights*//*[27.3(a)] and it was suggested that the >>>>>> language be >>>>>> >>>>> clarified to ensure that the same approval process used >>>>>> for >>>>>> >>>>> Work Stream 1 would apply. We propose the following >>>>>> >>>>> clarifying edits. We suggest that you share this with >>>>>> the >>>>>> >>>>> CCWG and if there is agreement, the following proposed >>>>>> edit >>>>>> >>>>> should be included in the CCWG’s public comment:____ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Redline:____ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> *Section 27.3. HUMAN RIGHTS____* >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> __ __ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> (a) The Core Value set forth in Section 1.2(b)(viii) >>>>>> shall >>>>>> >>>>> have no force or effect unless and until a framework of >>>>>> >>>>> interpretation for human rights (“*FOI-HR*”) is approved >>>>>> by >>>>>> >>>>> (i) approved for submission to the Board by the >>>>>> >>>>> CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work >>>>>> >>>>> Stream 2, and (ii) approved by each of the >>>>>> >>>>> CCWG-Accountability’s chartering organizations and (iii) >>>>>> the >>>>>> >>>>> Board, (in each thecase of the Board, using the same >>>>>> process >>>>>> >>>>> and criteria used by the Boardto consider the as for Work >>>>>> >>>>> Stream 1 Recommendations).____ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> __ __ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> (b) No person or entity shall be entitled to invoke the >>>>>> >>>>> reconsideration process provided in Section 4.2, or the >>>>>> >>>>> independent review process provided in Section 4.3, based >>>>>> >>>>> solely on the inclusion of the Core Value set forth in >>>>>> >>>>> Section 1.2(b)(viii) (i) until after the FOI-HR >>>>>> contemplated >>>>>> >>>>> by Section 27.3(a) is in place or (ii) for actions of >>>>>> ICANN >>>>>> >>>>> or the Board that occurred prior to the____ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> effectiveness of the FOI-HR.____ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Clean:____ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> *Section 27.3. HUMAN RIGHTS____* >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> __ __ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> (a) The Core Value set forth in Section 1.2(b)(viii) >>>>>> shall >>>>>> >>>>> have no force or effect unless and until a framework of >>>>>> >>>>> interpretation for human rights (“*FOI-HR*”) is (i) >>>>>> approved >>>>>> >>>>> for submission to the Board by the CCWG-Accountability >>>>>> as a >>>>>> >>>>> consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 and (ii) >>>>>> approved >>>>>> >>>>> by the Board, in each case, using the same process and >>>>>> >>>>> criteria as for Work Stream 1 Recommendations.____ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> __ __ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> (b) No person or entity shall be entitled to invoke the >>>>>> >>>>> reconsideration process provided in Section 4.2, or the >>>>>> >>>>> independent review process provided in Section 4.3, based >>>>>> >>>>> solely on the inclusion of the Core Value set forth in >>>>>> >>>>> Section 1.2(b)(viii) (i) until after the FOI-HR >>>>>> contemplated >>>>>> >>>>> by Section 27.3(a) is in place or (ii) for actions of >>>>>> ICANN >>>>>> >>>>> or the Board that occurred prior to the____ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> effectiveness of the FOI-HR.____ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, ____ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> __ __ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Holly and Rosemary____ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> __ __ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> __ __ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> *HOLLY* *J. GREGORY* >>>>>> >>>>> Partner and Co-Chair >>>>>> >>>>> Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice >>>>>> Group____ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>>>>> >>>>> 787 Seventh Avenue >>>>>> >>>>> New York, NY 10019 >>>>>> >>>>> +1 212 839 5853 >>>>>> >>>>> holly.gregory(a)sidley.com >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> <mailto: >>>>>> holly.gregory(a)sidley.com> >>>>>> >>>>> www.sidley.com >>>>>> >>>>> <http://www.sidley.com/> <http://www.sidley.com/>____ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png >>>>>> >>>>> <http://www.sidley.com/> *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP*____ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> __ __ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> **************************************************************************************************** >>>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> **************************************************************************************************** >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>>>>> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>>>>> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >>> 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 >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> -- >>>>>> >> Niels ten Oever >>>>>> >> Head of Digital >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Article 19 >>>>>> >> www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org/> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 >>>>>> >> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >>>>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >> 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 >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Niels ten Oever >>>>>> Head of Digital >>>>>> >>>>>> Article 19 >>>>>> www.article19.org >>>>>> >>>>>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 >>>>>> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >>>> >>>> >>> >

10 15

IAB commented on draft bylaws
by Andrew Sullivan May 5, 2016

May 5, 2016

Dear colleagues, I thought it might be interesting to participants here that the IAB has submitted a comment on the draft bylaws. The posting has appeared in the archive at http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/msg00001.html, and the IAB's announcement is at https://www.iab.org/2016/05/04/iab-comments-on-draft-new-icann-bylaws/. Best regards, A (for myself) -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com

3 2

TR: Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A)
by Mathieu Weill May 4, 2016

May 4, 2016

Dear Colleagues, As a follow up from the call yesterday, please find below a note from our lawyers regarding one of the points we discussed. This is related to the requirement to provide rationale when initiating a community power escalation process. Best, Mathieu _____ From: Grapsas, Rebecca Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 05:24:00 PM To: Gregory, Holly Subject: Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) Dear Co-Chairs, On today’s CCWG call, a concern was raised regarding the requirement to provide “specific rationales” in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) (pasted below). As discussed below, this provision is consistent with the CCWG Proposal. As I noted in the chat during today’s call, the general requirement for the Petitioning Decisional Participant to provide a rationale for the rejection petition (i.e., the first part of (A), highlighted in yellow) was included to reflect Annex 2, Paragraph 32 (first bullet, first sub-bullet)), which provides that “Within 24 hours of a petition being approved, the petitioning Decisional Participant will: Circulate a detailed rationale for proposing to use the Community Power to all Decisional Participants. Any SO or AC may contribute preliminary thoughts or questions in writing via a specific publicly archived email list set up for this specific issue….” The language in (A) highlighted in green was included to reflect Annex 4, Paragraphs 12 and 14: · Paragraph 12: “The CCWG-Accountability has determined that a separate petition would be required for each budget or strategic/operating plan being challenged. A budget or strategic/operating plan could only be challenged if there are significant issue(s) brought up in the engagement process that were not addressed prior to approval.” · Paragraph 14: “A community decision to reject a budget or a plan after it has been approved by the ICANN Board will be based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community. The veto could only concern issues that had been raised in the public consultations conducted before the Board approved the budget or plan.” Given that a budget or plan can only be rejected based on “perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community”, the Bylaw was drafted to limit the ability to escalate rejection of a budget or plan to situations where the rationale includes one or more of those specified items. Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A): (c) A Decisional Participant that has received a Rejection Action Petition shall either accept or reject such Rejection Action Petition; provided that a Decisional Participant may only accept such Rejection Action Petition if it was received by such Decisional Participant during the Rejection Action Petition Period. (i) If, in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.2(c) of this Annex D, a Decisional Participant accepts a Rejection Action Petition during the Rejection Action Petition Period, the Decisional Participant shall promptly provide to the EC Administration, the other Decisional Participants and the Secretary written notice (“Rejection Action Petition Notice”) of such acceptance (such Decisional Participant, the “Rejection Action Petitioning Decisional Participant”), and ICANN shall promptly post such Rejection Action Petition Notice on the Website. The Rejection Action Petition Notice shall also include: (A) the rationale upon which rejection of the Rejection Action is sought. Where the Rejection Action Petition Notice relates to an ICANN Budget, an IANA Budget, an Operating Plan or a Strategic Plan, the Rejection Action Petition Notice shall not be valid and shall not be accepted by the EC Administration unless the rationale set forth in the Rejection Action Petition Notice is based on one or more significant issues that were specifically raised in the applicable public comment period(s) relating to perceived inconsistencies with the Mission, purpose and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN’s stakeholders, financial stability, or other matter of concern to the community; Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) as included in the April 20 draft of the Bylaws is consistent with the CCWG Proposal. Best regards, Holly HOLLY J. GREGORY Partner and Co-Chair Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Group Sidley Austin LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory(a)sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com/> www.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. ****************************************************************************************************

7 13

Notes-Recordings-Transcript link for CCWG Accountability Meeting #93 - 3 May 2016
by MSSI Secretariat May 4, 2016

May 4, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability Meeting #93 - 3 May 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/bEuAAw A copy of the Notes and Action Items may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 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. Summary of Action Items: * Action item - Bylaws section 1.1.D - "Issue with integrating external agreements into the mission statement, especially agreements that are not yet defined or agreed to". Co-Chairs to raise this issue directly with SO/AC leadership. * Action Item - Draft Bylaws 1.2.(b).(viii) - "Wording of Human Rights text". Lawyers to post their rationale for this text to the list ASAP for discussion by the CCWG on list. * Action Item - Staff to draft a comment document for the leadership review ASAP based on the results of this meeting. * Action Item - Co-Chairs to request that the Bylaws drafting Coordination Group discuss the process post-public consultation. 1. Welcome, roll call, SOI * KDrazek phone only * No SOI updates 2. Outline of next steps (TR) * CCWG comments should only include those supported by the group overall. * The general tone of our comments should be supportive. 3. Discussion of CCWG Responses to public consultation on draft Bylaws (co-chairs) * WHOIS review vs 5 year requirement - AG this has to be NOTED as a minimum. Relation to RDS. JGannon this is not the job of the CCWG to fix - but needs to be noted. GS there may be reasons to postpone reviews. MW general agreement to note in CCWG comments. * Bylaws section 1.1.(c), issue with language - Suggested fix GShatan: The simplest solution would be to remove this clause and end the sentence with "authority." That removes the issue of "What does "such regulations" refer to?" I support this fix. TR supported. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments. * Bylaws section 1.1.D - Issue with integrating external agreements into the mission statement, especially agreements that are not yet defined or agreed to. BBurr this is a significant concern. KDrazek - ICG has discussed this and is more than just PTI but also includes the IETF and IAB and the ICG will be submitting a comment on this. KArasteh serious issue for ICG. TR concerned parties should be the ones making the comments. ACooper the concerns arise because they are not in the ICG or CCWG proposal - therefore this is not consistent with the CCWG recommendations. It would be worth the CCWG taking a broader view. KArasteh - needs to be raised. TR difficult situation - many expect an answer - we need to state what was in our report. MW the CCWG comment can confirm what was in the CCWG report (RA and RAA and renewals) and note that there are other reports which are not in our recommendations. AGreenberg could ask the Chartering Organizations to comment on this topic. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments. * Action item - Bylaws section 1.1.D - "Issue with integrating external agreements into the mission statement, especially agreements that are not yet defined or agreed to". Co-Chairs to raise this issue directly with SO/AC leadership. * Bylaws 1.1(d)ii(A)(1) -Includes grandfathering RA and RAA agreements that are not yet signed. BBurr explained what is in the CCWG proposal. May need to go back to original draft of the Bylaws. MW RA and RAA agreements are covered but the wording should be reviewed. BBurr should not allow renewal of agreements that are not in the Form. KArasteh - need to be careful as grandfathering has been expanded. Bschaefer - BB has properly explained the situation and the fix should address this - looking forward to seeing new text. Concern that renewals could take the agreements beyond the scope of the mission. AGreenberg - agree with general thrust. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments. * Draft Bylaws 1.1.(d).ii.(F) - Arguing against renewal as drafted - MW if the agreements are removed because they were not in the CCWG report this would fix this issue. Will not be included in the CCWG comments. * Draft Bylaws 6.1.(b) - Expand examples - SEisner - earlier parts name those participants so there is no need to do so here. JHammer, no need to call out SSAC. TR this will not be on the CCWG comments. Will not be included in the CCWG comments. * Draft Bylaws 22.8 - Why does this specify that the Decisional Participants have to decide by consensus? LS - Phrase "by consensus" should struck. No comments, accepted for CCWG comments. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments. * Draft Bylaws 22.8 - Board power to redact should not be as significant as proposed.MW. There was no such power in the CCWG recommendations. BSchaefer suggestion to remove "including". KArasteh why should we object to this. BSchaefer as written it leaves it open to the Board's discretion to define what can be redacted. AGreenberg - support removal but if it is removed the list may have to be expanded. Approved for CCWG comment removing INCLUDING. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments. * Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 1.4.(b)TR. KArateh not convinced. Carve out is a very sensitive issue. IMittemaier (Adler) GAC carve out could apply to an approval. BSchaefer the GAC carve out could apply and this is necessary for clarification. KArasteh cannot agree with this as I do not see how this could apply to approvals. TR this seems to be a point only supported by BS, as such we should encourage BS to file his comment individually. SEisner this was discussed by lawyers and although it applies it would not change the thresholds therefore it did not add anything to include it. TR comment should be that the CCWG ask the Board to check with legal if this is required. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments. * Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 2.2.(c).(i).(A) - Specific rationales not required in all CCWG Recommendations MW - BSchaefer - need to be clear on the type of rationale that is required and where. AGreenberg - restrictions only apply to rejecting Budget and Strat Plans. Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): Proposal - Annex 2 - Para 32 bullet 3 says "petitioning Decisional Participants will circulate a detailed rationale for proposing to use the Community Power to all Decisional Participants" MW more work is needed to match the recommendations to the Bylaws. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments. * Approval of Human Rights FOI. LS - Suggested approach - replace ii in draft Bylaws with: "and approved by the CCWG using the same process as for WS1 recommendations." KArasteh - need to be explicit that any decision needs to be approved by chartering organizations. I prefer explicit approval by chartering orgs. GShatan what needs to be clear there is no different process vs WS1 or all other WS2 recommendations. Lets just make this clear. TBenJemaa - Would like to stick with the final report. Simply add AS PER THE CHARTER OF THE CCWG after Chartering Organizations. LS our lawyers should provide what should be the best solution for the comment to ensure clarity. TBenJemaa the current draft is from the lawyers it must be with the input. Will be the subject of a CCWG comment - : LS ask lawyers to clarify that there is no need for approval by all COs, but same CO approval requirement as current CCWG charter. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments. * Draft Bylaws 1.2.(b).(viii) - Wording of Human Rights text LS - Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): "herein" refers to 27.3 of the Bylaws, and that could be substituted for "herein". BSchaefer the herein eviscerates the limitation and creates the opportunity to have a basis for filing. KArasteh - RF was correct, please do not use herein. Agree with the suggestion. LS Seem to be agreement with the proposal by RF. BSchaefer disagrees with RF suggestion, prefers to remove. LS disagree. JGannon - have come around to BS thinking. KArasteh - cannot agree with LS proposal. We do not need this sentence at all. LS will ask the lawyers to explain their rationale for this text on the list so we can conclude on this topic. * Action Item - Draft Bylaws 1.2.(b).(viii) - "Wording of Human Rights text". Lawyers to post their rationale for this text to the list ASAP for discussion by the CCWG on list. * IRP provisions - six month clause.MW TBenJemaa - This means that even if the panel takes 2 years to issue its decision, nothing can be done. My proposal is to remove the last part, and in the Rule of Procedure, we define the nature of the circumstances that may prevent the panel to issue its decision in 6 months, and the maximum extension that could be given to the IRP according to the nature of the circumstance to complete its proceedings. HGregory - We are happy to remove that sentence that was put in by ICANN legal (we did not disagree with them including it.). However, it is important to note that there cannot be an IRP on an IRP failure - as such the statement is true but redundant. SEisner - We are all in violent agreement that it should conclude in six months but there could be circumstances where this cannot be done. However, given the IRP is in the Bylaws and not meeting the six month limit could allow someone to challenge ICANN is not meeting Bylaws requirements. We just want to avoid this situation. HGregory - SE makes a good point - IRP is available when the Bylaws are not met - bringing an IRP against ICANN on this should be judged frivolous. So I understand the concern and the sentence that is there does fix the problem. It does not address the issue that the development of IRP rules needs to encourage the panel to complete its deliberations in the allotted time. MW we understand the underlying concern and would hope that it can be addressed in a different way? Do we submit a comment that there could be an issue? KArasteh - can we list some possible exceptions? TBenJemaa - ok with what was said. MW our comment will point to this text as not the correct way to translate the recommendations into bylaws and recognize the potential for a claim and request the lawyers address this. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments. * BSchaefer - the last point in my email about the Ombudsman to offer relief in an RFR. TR the point may have merit but we can only verify if the Draft Bylaws meet the CCWG recommendations and so our hands our tied. However, the Ombudsman process will be reviewed in WS2. Will not be included in the CCWG comments. 4. CCWG general direction of submission * TR we will submit our comments on May 10th. We will begin work on the comments now and will advise soon when we will distribute to the group for a 72 hour comment period. * Action Item - Staff to draft a comment document for the leadership review ASAP based on the results of this meeting. * AGreenberg what happens after the public comment. What happens if there are conflicting comments. We will take this up with the Bylaws drafting team. TR we will discuss this with the drafting team. * Action Item - Co-Chairs to request that the Bylaws drafting Coordination Group discuss the process post-public consultation. 5. AOB * None Conclusion of the meeting

1 0

CCWG - Slides for May 3rd meeting
by Bernard Turcotte May 3, 2016

May 3, 2016

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Human Rights Transition Provision: Bylaws Section 27.3(a)
by Seun Ojedeji May 3, 2016

May 3, 2016

I think we can just agree that paragraph 6(which you referenced) poorly summarised paragraph 23, a section of which I quote below : "...This Bylaw provision will not enter into force until (1) a Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 (including Chartering Organizations’ approval) and (2) the FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations.” OR the summary was indeed referring to the approval process to be used by the board as I think that was quite a huge debate during the discussion and bullet point 6 of paragraph 28 of the report confirms that. Below: "Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried outonce an FOI-HR is developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 *(including Chartering Organizations’ approval)* and the *FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations*" Pay attention to the sections stared! Again that same bullet point repeated the phrase "(including Chartering Organizations’ approval)". You may also want to note that paragraph 23 was actually a proposed bylaw text and not just one of those texts that can be taken lightly. I hope that is "clear and unequivocal" enough Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 2 May 2016 9:20 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: I am also referring to what we [said/wrote]* in the report, which is the following: "The proposed draft Bylaw also clarifies that no IRP challenges can be made on the grounds of this Bylaw until a Framework of Interpretation on Human Rights (FOI-HR) is developed and approved as part of Work Stream 2 activities. It further clarifies that *acceptance of the **FOI**-HR will require the same process as for Work Stream 1 recommendations* (as agreed for all Work Stream 2 recommendations)." We said ... er sorry .. wrote this *three* times in the report, and we need to give this effect. The language in the draft circulated for comment is inconsistent with this statement, to the extent that it appears to require the positive approval of all Chartering Organizations, which would be a *different* process than the one used for Work Stream 1 recommendations. As such, the draft needs to be corrected. I was on the calls and email exchanges when the parenthetical about the chartering organizations was inserted in the "bylaws" language in the Proposal. All that was meant by the insertion was to clarify that the FoI did not go straight from Working Group approval to the Board, but had to be reviewed by the Chartering Organizations first, just as the WS1 recommendations were reviewed. There was never any discussion or intent to imply that a higher standard of approval was needed for the FoI vs. all other CCWG recommendations. If anyone can find a clear and unequivocal statement that shows the CCWG meant to have a heightened standard for the FoI, I'll reconsider my view. However, I'm confident there is no such statement. We spent many, many hours of discussing and drafting sections on levels of approval for the Empowered Community and relating to levels of approval within the GAC. As such, it defies logic to claim that the simple insertion of a parenthetical, without any specific discussion or explanation of a heightened standard, created a requirement for unanimous and/or positive approval. Greg ______ * You are inventing a dichotomy where there is none. In either case, I was referring to the report, not to some verbal utterance. I'm sorry if my somewhat colloquial use of "said" confused you. It's perfectly acceptable to use "said" to refer to a written document, at least in everyday usage. On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Depends on how you are interpreting the word "bundle"; the WS1 was > presented as a single document, while some COs decided to approve/respond > recommendation by recommendation, others approved the document as a whole. > Perhaps a simple application of the report(if you want to avoid round trips > proposed in the report without distorting the intent) will be to highlight > FoI as a single recommendation in WS2 which gives the COs the option to > approve/reject it out rightly and then the CCWG can determine what to do > with the FoI based on the outcome of the COs approval process. > > On your second point, at this juncture I am not talking about what we said > but rather about what we WROTE in the report, which is what anyone who have > not followed the process would rely upon. So do you want to reflect "what > we said" or "what we wrote" either of them is fine by me but we should be > clear on the path we have chosen, knowing it's implications as well. > > Regards > > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > On 2 May 2016 3:51 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> At no point did we say that the FoI would be bundled with other WS2 >> recommendations as a complete package. Indeed, we've never said that any >> of the WS2 projects had to be bundled with others. >> >> At no point did we say that there would be a special process for >> approving the FoI. It should be the same as WS1, which contemplates a >> review by the Chartering Organizations, and then allows the CCWG to forward >> recommendation to the Board even if less than all of the COs approve of the >> recommendation. >> >> As long as we can find ways to reflect that clearly, we will be carrying >> out the intent of the Proposal. >> >> Greg >> >> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hello Thomas, >>> >>> If I process this correctly, it implies approval of the FoI will be done >>> based on ratification process in the CCWG charter, which is different from >>> approval of the whole WS2 package as per the charter. >>> >>> If that is it, then I will say it's somewhat closer to what was proposed >>> in the report (even though the report did not mention that CO ratification >>> of FoI is based on the charter). >>> >>> Regards >>> Sent from my LG G4 >>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>> On 2 May 2016 3:24 p.m., "Thomas Rickert" <thomas(a)rickert.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> Tijani has proposed a solution at the end of his latest e-mail: >>>> >>>> I understand that the first proposal made the approval of all the >>>> chartering organizations necessary, The modification should keep the >>>> reference to the ratification of the chartering organizations and add "as >>>> defined in the CCWG charter“. >>>> >>>> Would that be a way forward? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Thomas >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Am 02.05.2016 um 16:19 schrieb Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com>: >>>> >>>> Hello Niels, >>>> >>>> I think we may just be playing around with words here, definitely you >>>> understand Tijani's concern ;-). Let me attempt to spell out(even though I >>>> have done this before) my understanding of the report which I must say is >>>> obvious: >>>> >>>> 1. The report clearly used the phrase "...*including* approval of >>>> chartering organisations" >>>> >>>> 2. Equating that to mean that it's equivalent to the CO approval within >>>> CCWG may be out of order because as per the charter irrespective of number >>>> of support from CO, the package goes to board for approval. >>>> >>>> 3. The intent of item 2 above is not the same thing as item 1; What I >>>> understand is that the FoI as a critical document it is needs to be >>>> developed during WS2, approved by the CO and incoporated into the WS2 >>>> proposal which is then sent to COs for approval as a complete package. >>>> >>>> That said, i will again say that if the goal is to reflect what was >>>> written in the report then we are out of order. However we may just agree >>>> that what we have done is correcting a *mistake* in the report through the >>>> bylaw. In that case, we should present it as such and not on claims that >>>> the report did not say approval of CO is required. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>> On 2 May 2016 9:40 a.m., "Niels ten Oever" <lists(a)nielstenoever.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Tijani, >>>>> >>>>> But the chartering organizations are mentioned in the charter of the >>>>> CCWG, so am not sure if I understand your concern. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Niels >>>>> >>>>> On 05/02/2016 10:22 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: >>>>> > Hi Niels, >>>>> > >>>>> > The last modification of the bylaws proposed by the lawyers didn’t >>>>> make >>>>> > any reference to the chartering organizations approval while it is >>>>> > clearly mentioned in the CCWG last proposal ratified by the >>>>> chartering >>>>> > organizations. >>>>> > >>>>> > Have a nice day >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> > *Tijani BEN JEMAA* >>>>> > Executive Director >>>>> > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) >>>>> > Phone: +216 98 330 114 >>>>> > +216 52 385 114 >>>>> > >>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >> Le 2 mai 2016 à 09:11, Niels ten Oever <lists(a)nielstenoever.net >>>>> >> <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> a écrit : >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Dear Tijani and Kavouss, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Could you please indicate where the proposed text is not consistent >>>>> with >>>>> >> the report? Concrete references would be helpful for me to better >>>>> >> understand your point. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Thanks in advance, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Niels >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On 05/02/2016 09:38 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>>> >>> Tijani +1 >>>>> >>> I fully agree with Tijani >>>>> >>> People misuse the opportunity to make modifications that were not >>>>> agreed >>>>> >>> during the lkast 16 months >>>>> >>> NO CHANGE NO MODIFICATIONS. >>>>> >>> During the WSIS I WILL tell everybody that there is no supervision >>>>> nor >>>>> >>> control on what we have agreed and the people will make whatever >>>>> change >>>>> >>> they wish without the agreements of the others >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> KAVOUSS >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> 2016-05-02 8:14 GMT+02:00 Tijani BEN JEMAA < >>>>> tijani.benjemaa(a)topnet.tn >>>>> >>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> >>>>> >>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>>: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Mathieu and all, >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> The modification proposed doesn’t reflect the CCWG last proposal >>>>> >>> approved by the chartering organization. I don’t think we are >>>>> >>> allowed to write bylaws that are not the exact interpretation >>>>> of the >>>>> >>> approved document that had the CCWG consensus and the charting >>>>> >>> organizations ratification. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>> *Tijani BEN JEMAA* >>>>> >>> Executive Director >>>>> >>> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) >>>>> >>> Phone: +216 98 330 114 >>>>> >>> +216 52 385 114 >>>>> >>> >>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> Le 2 mai 2016 à 04:23, Kavouss Arasteh < >>>>> kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com >>>>> >>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> a écrit : >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Mathieu, >>>>> >>>> Tks >>>>> >>>> Pls NOTE MY SERIOUS OBJECTIONS to: >>>>> >>>> 1.NOT MENTIONING REFERNCE TO THE APPROVAL OF CHARTERING >>>>> >>>> ORGANIZATIONBS in HR >>>>> >>>> 2. GIVE GIVE A BLANKET AGREEMENT TO THE DOCUMENTS WHICH YET TO >>>>> BE >>>>> >>>> DRAFTED. >>>>> >>>> 3. Making so many changes to the Third proposals . We must >>>>> avoid >>>>> >>>> having a new proposal >>>>> >>>> Kavouss >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> 2016-05-01 22:42 GMT+02:00 Mathieu Weill < >>>>> mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr >>>>> >>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> >>>>> >>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Please find below for your consideration some suggestions >>>>> from >>>>> >>>> our lawyers for clarification of the bylaw language >>>>> regarding >>>>> >>>> the Human rights FoI. This follows our request during the >>>>> >>>> previous call. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Best, >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Mathieu Weill >>>>> >>>> --------------- >>>>> >>>> Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Début du message transféré : >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Expéditeur:* "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com >>>>> >>>>> <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> >>>>> >>>>> <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> >>>>> >>>>> *Date:* 1 mai 2016 19:10:53 UTC+2 >>>>> >>>>> *Destinataire:* "'Mathieu Weill'" <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr >>>>> >>>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> >>>>> >>>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, "'Thomas Rickert'" >>>>> >>>>> <thomas(a)rickert.net >>>>> >>>>> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León >>>>> Felipe >>>>> >>>>> Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx >>>>> >>>>> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> >>>>> >>>>> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "bylaws-coord(a)icann.org >>>>> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> >>>>> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>" <bylaws-coord(a)icann.org >>>>> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> >>>>> >>>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>> >>>>> >>>>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org >>>>> >>>>> <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> >>>>> >>>>> <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, "Rosemary E. Fei" >>>>> >>>>> <rfei(a)adlercolvin.com >>>>> >>>>> <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>>, >>>>> >>>>> "ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com >>>>> >>>>> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>" >>>>> >>>>> <ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com >>>>> >>>>> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, >>>>> >>>>> Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com >>>>> >>>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com> >>>>> >>>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, >>>>> >>>>> "Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org <mailto: >>>>> Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org> >>>>> >>>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>" >>>>> >>>>> <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org >>>>> >>>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> <mailto: >>>>> Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org>> >>>>> >>>>> *Objet:* *Human Rights Transition Provision: Bylaws >>>>> Section >>>>> >>>>> 27.3(a)* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear Co-Chairs and Bylaws Coordinating Group: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On the CCWG call last week, there was a discussion of the >>>>> >>>>> Bylaws language regarding the transition provision on >>>>> Human >>>>> >>>>> Rights*//*[27.3(a)] and it was suggested that the >>>>> language be >>>>> >>>>> clarified to ensure that the same approval process used >>>>> for >>>>> >>>>> Work Stream 1 would apply. We propose the following >>>>> >>>>> clarifying edits. We suggest that you share this with the >>>>> >>>>> CCWG and if there is agreement, the following proposed >>>>> edit >>>>> >>>>> should be included in the CCWG’s public comment:____ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Redline:____ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Section 27.3. HUMAN RIGHTS____* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> __ __ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (a) The Core Value set forth in Section 1.2(b)(viii) shall >>>>> >>>>> have no force or effect unless and until a framework of >>>>> >>>>> interpretation for human rights (“*FOI-HR*”) is approved >>>>> by >>>>> >>>>> (i) approved for submission to the Board by the >>>>> >>>>> CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work >>>>> >>>>> Stream 2, and (ii) approved by each of the >>>>> >>>>> CCWG-Accountability’s chartering organizations and (iii) >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>> Board, (in each thecase of the Board, using the same >>>>> process >>>>> >>>>> and criteria used by the Boardto consider the as for Work >>>>> >>>>> Stream 1 Recommendations).____ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> __ __ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (b) No person or entity shall be entitled to invoke the >>>>> >>>>> reconsideration process provided in Section 4.2, or the >>>>> >>>>> independent review process provided in Section 4.3, based >>>>> >>>>> solely on the inclusion of the Core Value set forth in >>>>> >>>>> Section 1.2(b)(viii) (i) until after the FOI-HR >>>>> contemplated >>>>> >>>>> by Section 27.3(a) is in place or (ii) for actions of >>>>> ICANN >>>>> >>>>> or the Board that occurred prior to the____ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> effectiveness of the FOI-HR.____ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Clean:____ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Section 27.3. HUMAN RIGHTS____* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> __ __ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (a) The Core Value set forth in Section 1.2(b)(viii) shall >>>>> >>>>> have no force or effect unless and until a framework of >>>>> >>>>> interpretation for human rights (“*FOI-HR*”) is (i) >>>>> approved >>>>> >>>>> for submission to the Board by the CCWG-Accountability as >>>>> a >>>>> >>>>> consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 and (ii) >>>>> approved >>>>> >>>>> by the Board, in each case, using the same process and >>>>> >>>>> criteria as for Work Stream 1 Recommendations.____ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> __ __ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (b) No person or entity shall be entitled to invoke the >>>>> >>>>> reconsideration process provided in Section 4.2, or the >>>>> >>>>> independent review process provided in Section 4.3, based >>>>> >>>>> solely on the inclusion of the Core Value set forth in >>>>> >>>>> Section 1.2(b)(viii) (i) until after the FOI-HR >>>>> contemplated >>>>> >>>>> by Section 27.3(a) is in place or (ii) for actions of >>>>> ICANN >>>>> >>>>> or the Board that occurred prior to the____ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> effectiveness of the FOI-HR.____ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, ____ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> __ __ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Holly and Rosemary____ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> __ __ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> __ __ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *HOLLY* *J. GREGORY* >>>>> >>>>> Partner and Co-Chair >>>>> >>>>> Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice >>>>> Group____ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>>>> >>>>> 787 Seventh Avenue >>>>> >>>>> New York, NY 10019 >>>>> >>>>> +1 212 839 5853 >>>>> >>>>> holly.gregory(a)sidley.com >>>>> >>>>> <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> <mailto: >>>>> holly.gregory(a)sidley.com> >>>>> >>>>> www.sidley.com >>>>> >>>>> <http://www.sidley.com/> <http://www.sidley.com/>____ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png >>>>> >>>>> <http://www.sidley.com/> *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP*____ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> __ __ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> **************************************************************************************************** >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> **************************************************************************************************** >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>>>> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>>> >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>>>> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>>> >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >>> 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 >>>>> >>> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> -- >>>>> >> Niels ten Oever >>>>> >> Head of Digital >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Article 19 >>>>> >> www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org/> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 >>>>> >> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >>>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >> 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 >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Niels ten Oever >>>>> Head of Digital >>>>> >>>>> Article 19 >>>>> www.article19.org >>>>> >>>>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 >>>>> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >>> >>> >>

4 6

Fwd: Human Rights Transition Provision: Bylaws Section 27.3(a)
by Mathieu Weill May 3, 2016

May 3, 2016

Dear colleagues, Please find below for your consideration some suggestions from our lawyers for clarification of the bylaw language regarding the Human rights FoI. This follows our request during the previous call. Best, Mathieu Weill --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style Début du message transféré : > Expéditeur: "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com> > Date: 1 mai 2016 19:10:53 UTC+2 > Destinataire: "'Mathieu Weill'" <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, "'Thomas Rickert'" <thomas(a)rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, "bylaws-coord(a)icann.org" <bylaws-coord(a)icann.org> > Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org>, "Rosemary E. Fei" <rfei(a)adlercolvin.com>, "ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com" <ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com>, "Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org" <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org> > Objet: Human Rights Transition Provision: Bylaws Section 27.3(a) > > Dear Co-Chairs and Bylaws Coordinating Group: > > On the CCWG call last week, there was a discussion of the Bylaws language regarding the transition provision on Human Rights [27.3(a)] and it was suggested that the language be clarified to ensure that the same approval process used for Work Stream 1 would apply. We propose the following clarifying edits. We suggest that you share this with the CCWG and if there is agreement, the following proposed edit should be included in the CCWG’s public comment: > Redline: > > Section 27.3. HUMAN RIGHTS > > (a) The Core Value set forth in Section 1.2(b)(viii) shall have no force or effect unless and until a framework of interpretation for human rights (“FOI-HR”) is approved by (i) approved for submission to the Board by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2, and (ii) approved by each of the CCWG-Accountability’s chartering organizations and (iii) the Board, (in each the case of the Board, using the same process and criteria used by the Board to consider the as for Work Stream 1 Recommendations). > > (b) No person or entity shall be entitled to invoke the reconsideration process provided in Section 4.2, or the independent review process provided in Section 4.3, based solely on the inclusion of the Core Value set forth in Section 1.2(b)(viii) (i) until after the FOI-HR contemplated by Section 27.3(a) is in place or (ii) for actions of ICANN or the Board that occurred prior to the > effectiveness of the FOI-HR. > > Clean: > > Section 27.3. HUMAN RIGHTS > > (a) The Core Value set forth in Section 1.2(b)(viii) shall have no force or effect unless and until a framework of interpretation for human rights (“FOI-HR”) is (i) approved for submission to the Board by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 and (ii) approved by the Board, in each case, using the same process and criteria as for Work Stream 1 Recommendations. > > (b) No person or entity shall be entitled to invoke the reconsideration process provided in Section 4.2, or the independent review process provided in Section 4.3, based solely on the inclusion of the Core Value set forth in Section 1.2(b)(viii) (i) until after the FOI-HR contemplated by Section 27.3(a) is in place or (ii) for actions of ICANN or the Board that occurred prior to the > effectiveness of the FOI-HR. > > Kind regards, > > Holly and Rosemary > > > > HOLLY J. GREGORY > Partner and Co-Chair > Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Group > Sidley Austin LLP > 787 Seventh Avenue > New York, NY 10019 > +1 212 839 5853 > holly.gregory(a)sidley.com > www.sidley.com > SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP > > > > **************************************************************************************************** > 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. > > ****************************************************************************************************

12 28

Proposed Agenda CCWG ACCT Meeting - 3 May @ 19:00 UTC
by MSSI Secretariat May 2, 2016

May 2, 2016

Dear All, In preparation for your call, CCWG Accountability Meeting #93 <https://community.icann.org/x/bEuAAw> - Tuesday, 3 May @ 19:00 - 21:00 UTC. Time zone converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+Accountabilit…> Proposed Agenda: 1. Welcome, roll call, SOI 2. Outline of next steps 3. Discussion of CCWG Responses to public consultation on draft Bylaws 4. CCWG general direction of submission 5. AOB Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ Thank you! With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

1 0

The whois/RDS-RT bylaw vs. current activities
by Andrew Sullivan May 2, 2016

May 2, 2016

Hi, In thinking about the way the bylaws require the regular RTs and how those might interact with other processes, I'm wondering whether we think it would be consistent with the report to say that, if a PDP is going on about any topic that is subject to regular RT, then the PDP can be counted as fulfilling the purposes of the RT? It seems to me that this is consistent with the point of the regular RT requirement (i.e. ensuring that the review happens in a timely way) without entailing that we waste time, money, and energy in multiple, potentially conflicting efforts on the same topic. Have I missed something? Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com

15 21