J

On Thursday, 13 August 2015, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:

+1

And I don't think that community approval was what we agreed or was intended.

On 8/12/2015 1:20 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
This is a very good catch. Requiring community approval of the budget would seriously and I think needlessly delay the budget process.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 8:14 AM
To: Julie Hammer
Cc: At-Large Staff; cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix

Julie,

I think you're right. As this was passed on to the whole CWG and CCWG without any prior review by any subcommittees, it should be considered subject to review and comment.

Greg Shatan

On Wednesday, August 12, 2015, Julie Hammer <julie.hammer@bigpond.com> wrote:

Hi Leon,

Many thanks for sharing this matrix. One thing that struck me when having a quick look through it was that Sidley have listed at Item 2 (d) the following as Subject Matter for a new Fundamental Bylaw:

"Requirement that the ICANN community approve or veto the IANA Budget after it has been approved by the ICANN Board but before it has come into effect."

In my understanding, the proposed power was to consider and reject (or veto) the IANA Budget, but there should be no requirement for the ICANN Community to come together and actually approve the IANA budget. I had not thought that the Community Mechanism was intended to be used for such a purpose (ie approving strategic plans, operating plans or budgets).

I believe the relevant paragraph from the CCWG 2nd draft report is para 381 on page 58:

379. 381 Accordingly, this new power would give the community the ability to consider strategic and operating plans and budgets (both ICANN general and, separately, with respect to the budget for the IANA Functions) after they are approved by the Board (but before they come into effect) and reject them. The rejection could be of the proposed ICANN Budget or the IANA Budget, or of a proposed ICANN-wide strategic or operating plan. The petition would state which Budget or plan was being subject to veto. A separate petition is required for each Budget or plan being challenged.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but I don’t think the word ‘approve’ should appear in 2 (d) in the Sidley matrix.

Cheers, Julie

On 12 Aug 2015, at 1:56 am, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:

Hi all,

I am forwarding this matrix that the CWG is working on as it is of the interest of this group as well and to help us continue shaping our work forward.

The matrix is intended to help identify those bylaws that, from the scope of the CWG, would need to be considered fundamental. This, of course, is independent from the work we need to do but provides an example on what we can begin crafting ourselves.

If you want to keep being in the matrix, swallow the blue pill. If you want to work on shaping the matrix, swallow the red pill. (geek joke)

Best regards,

León

Inicio del mensaje reenviado:

De: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan@sidley.com>

Asunto: [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix

Fecha: 11 de agosto de 2015 9:43:05 GMT-5

Para: Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org>

Dear All,

Attached is a draft matrix summarizing the proposed ICANN bylaw changes that relate to CWG’s final proposal.

Could you please forward to the CWG?

Thanks

SHARON FLANAGAN
Partner

Sidley Austin LLP
555 California Street
Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94104
+1.415.772.1271
sflanagan@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.

****************************************************************************************************

<209588099_1.pdf>

_______________________________________________
Cwg-client mailing list
Cwg-client@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- 
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987