- Accountability-Cross-Community

Legal Subteam and Legal Coordination
by Greg Shatan April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

All, Please note that Leon Sanchez is out this week and I am coordinating communication with the Legal Subteam and counsel (Sidley and Adler & Colvin) this week, as well as chairing this week's Legal Subteam call. I will forward to the Legal email list any requests for the Legal Subteam (and potentially counsel) sent to this main email list. Please clearly label such requests in the Subject line of the email. Thanks! Greg *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan(a)lawabel.com <gsshatan(a)lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

1 0

Apologies
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Unfortunately I will not make tonight's CCWG call as I am delayed by an emergency case. greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6

1 0

Accountability questions to law firms
by Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Dear CCWG-colleagues, Please find below a group of questions to be posed to the law firms assisting the CCWG-Accountability. · Are there any restrictions in California law or in applicable federal US-law with respect to government officials (US or foreign) becoming statutory members (or designators) of a non-profit organization? Would all liabilities applied to US or foreign citizens in a membership (or designator) structure equally apply to a government official which has legal immunity and privileges in the United States? · What are the specific legal requirements for a third-party which may have approval or veto rights over board decisions and what are its liabilities? · A community veto (be it exercised in a membership or a designator structure) over a bylaw change could be potentially reverted through a court decision in California? Same question applies to a decision made by an Independent Appeals Panel mechanism. · The fact that the "board bears ultimate responsibility for corporate decisions and must provide oversight of the exercise of those powers it has delegated" (Sidley Austin LLP, Initial Discussion Draft 1, p. 3) implies that the board may eventually revert a community veto (member or designator structure) over its own decision or over the budget it has originally approved? · Is the Californian Attorney General able to intervene in ICANN's operations upon the complaint of a government (US or other)? How does this situation relate to norms of international private law internalized by the United States? Thanks in advance, Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Division of Information Society (DI) Ministry of External Relations - Brazil T: + 55 61 2030-6609

4 4

Fwd: [client com] Transition Models for Further Consideration
by Jordan Carter April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Dear all This will also have much of relevance to us. best Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Flanagan, Sharon <sflanagan(a)sidley.com> Date: 5 April 2015 at 02:51 Subject: [client com] Transition Models for Further Consideration To: "cwg-client(a)icann.org" <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Dear All, Attached is an initial discussion draft of the two models that the CWG requested Sidley's input on: the internal accountability/hybrid model with two closely related variants: accountability mechanism with legal separation and accountability mechanism with functional separation. We look forward to discussing. Best regards, Sharon *SHARON* *FLANAGAN* Partner *Sidley Austin LLP* +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Cwg-client mailing list Cwg-client(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

2 1

FINAL AGENDA - Call #21
by Alice Jansen April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Dear All, In preparation for your call today - Tuesday, 7 April - 19:00 - 21:00 UTC (time converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+&iso=201…>)- please disregard the agenda previously circulated and refer to the final agenda pasted below. Thanks, Best regards Alice 1. Welcome, roll-call, statement of interest 2. Update on sprint by various groups * WP1<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents> * WP2<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP+2+Draft+Documents> * ST-WP<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+Draft+Documents> 3. Legal group update 4. Timeline 5. Correspondence 6. CWG input 7. AOB

1 0

AGENDA - Call #21
by Alice Jansen April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Dear all, Below you will find a proposed agenda in preparation for your call #21<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52894988> - Tuesday, 7 April - 19:00 - 21:00 UTC (time converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+&iso=201…>): 1. Welcome, roll-call, statement of interest 2. Update on sprint by various groups * WP1<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents> * WP2<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP+2+Draft+Documents> * ST-WP<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+Draft+Documents> 3. Legal advice: questions & answers 4. Timeline 5. Correspondence 6. CWG input 7. AOB Thanks, Best regards Alice

1 0

CCWG meeting, 19 June, Buenos Aires
by Adam Peake April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

(on behalf of the CCWG co-chairs) Dear Colleagues, We would like to hold a meeting of the CCWG on Friday 19 June, in Buenos Aires. The purpose of the meeting is to prepare our proposals for presentation to the ICANN community and particularly to our chartering organizations during the week of ICANN#53. As this meeting will be held before the start of the ICANN meeting, following accepted travel procedure, ICANN will provide travel support: 1. ICANN will support CCWG members participation in the meeting, arrival 18 June for participation in the CCWG meeting on 19 June. 2. For CCWG members already supported by community travel, the CCWG project will cover the additional days and any change costs (airfare and accommodation/expenses for the rest of the ICANN meeting will be covered by the original community travel arrangement.) ICANN community travel will contact members about their travel needs. 3. For any CCWG member not supported by community travel, the CCWG project will offer to cover costs. Arrival 18 June, departure Friday 26 June. CCWG members will be contacted by ICANN Community travel staff who will ask what arrangements you would like to make. 4. ICANN will support the ICG and ATRT liaisons in the same way as described above (consistent with the CCWG meetings held in Frankfurt and Istanbul). Liaisons will be contacted by ICANN Community travel staff who will ask what arrangements you would like to make. The meeting on 19 June will have remote access facilities. Thank you, Thomas, Mathieu and Leon

2 1

Fwd: [client com] Suggestions regarding the transition models now under consideration
by Jordan Carter April 6, 2015

April 6, 2015

Dear all, this is of interest esp. the second point. best Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Boucher, Rick <rboucher(a)sidley.com> Date: 7 April 2015 at 03:45 Subject: [client com] Suggestions regarding the transition models now under consideration To: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan(a)sidley.com>, "cwg-client(a)icann.org" < cwg-client(a)icann.org> Sharon and colleagues, With a view toward enhancing the prospect for congressional acceptance of the transition proposal, I offered these suggestions with respect to the models under consideration: 1. It's far better for the PTI to be a separate nonprofit public benefit corporation. While this approach may add to structural complexity, it underscores the extent to which there is a clear separation between ICANN's DNS policymaking function and the performance of the IANA functions. 2. A careful review should be undertaken of the commitments imposed on ICANN in the Affirmation of Commitments ICANN entered into with NTIA. The obligations ICANN has undertaken in the Affirmation should be incorporated into the bylaws of ICANN, and these bylaws should not be amendable by the ICANN board without a supermajority of all board members (not just those present and voting). Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Thune's letter to ICANN says that the ICANN board should not be in a position to terminate the Affirmation of Commitments unless more than 4/5 of the entire board votes to do so. An appropriate way to acknowledge this recommendation would be to require a 4/5 majority of the entire board for amendments to the portions of the bylaws containing the ICANN responsibilities under the Commitments. This could also be the kind of board decision which would be subject to approval by the group of members. Please note that one of the commitments is that ICANN will remain headquartered in the United States. 3. The PTI board should be truly independent from the ICANN board, not ICANN board designated or controlled. It should be member group appointed, and there should be very limited if any overlap in membership between the ICANN Board and the PTI board. 4. The Periodic Review Team (PRT) should be chosen by an answerable to the member group. It is the main way members have of being certain the IANA functions are being satisfactorily performed. Rick *RICK* *BOUCHER* Partner *Sidley Austin LLP* +1.202.736.8290 rboucher(a)sidley.com *From:* Flanagan, Sharon *Sent:* Saturday, April 04, 2015 10:51 AM *To:* 'cwg-client(a)icann.org' *Cc:* Grace Abuhamad; Gregory, Holly; Hofheimer, Joshua T.; Clark, Michael A.; McNicholas, Edward R.; Boucher, Rick; Kerry, Cameron; Mohan, Vivek; Hilton, Tyler; Tam, Tennie H.; Fuller, Miles *Subject:* Transition Models for Further Consideration Dear All, Attached is an initial discussion draft of the two models that the CWG requested Sidley's input on: the internal accountability/hybrid model with two closely related variants: accountability mechanism with legal separation and accountability mechanism with functional separation. We look forward to discussing. Best regards, Sharon *SHARON* *FLANAGAN* Partner *Sidley Austin LLP* +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Cwg-client mailing list Cwg-client(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Canceled: CCWG Accountability LEGAL SubTeam Meeting (Wednesdays 15:00 UTC)
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse April 3, 2015

April 3, 2015

Dear Co-chairs, can you please advise the gentleman from Thailand that most E-Mail programs have a Delete button (usually in the form of a trash can) and that he may be able to mark messages with the mouse pointer and then delete them by clicking said button. This would be a much more efficient use of his precious time (where apparently every second counts) than harassing the hard-working staff. greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini > On Apr 3, 2015, at 04:17, Drew Noyes <drewnoyes(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Brenda Brewer, > > This is the second email I have sent to you in the last six months requesting that you do not send multiple copies of the same email to my account. This time I received more than a dozen copies of your email. Whatever email system you're using needs to be changed. As a volunteer I am satisfied for committing time to help these projects in groups, but I don't want to spend time like this. > > Thank you for your immediate attention to this. > > Best regards, > > > Drew Noyes (Thailand Law Firm) > One Stop Service Center Co Ltd > Pattaya Thailand > >> On Friday, April 3, 2015, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> wrote: >> This Meeting has changed. Please see new calendar invite. Thank you! ~~Brenda [...]

1 0

Fwd: FYI: ICANN: Bridging the Trust Gap
by Jordan Carter April 3, 2015

April 3, 2015

The subject matter here is relevant to us. Best Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Jaap Akkerhuis* <jaap(a)nlnetlabs.nl> Date: Friday, 3 April 2015 Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FYI: ICANN: Bridging the Trust Gap To: CWG on IANA Stewardship Transition <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Of some interest < https://ourinternet.org/#publications/icann-bridging-the-trust-gap>. jaap -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

1 0