+1 ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> __________ On May 8, 2016, at 10:14 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote: Hi, I do not understand the reasons for the proposed additions to comment 2. In particular, the changes to 2.3 appear to miss the point of the WG's remarks. That some as-yet unwritten document will exist in the future is completely irrelevant to whether it ought to be protected from challenge under the Mission. It wouldn'r even matter if that document were only to say "A=A" (or some other necessary truth). The document is being protected from challenge under the Mission, and (1) nobody knows _now_ what it will say in the future and (2) it shouldn't even possibly be inconsistent with the Mission. If it's not inconsistent with the Mission, it can't be challenged effectively. If it _is_ inconsistent with the Mission, it _ought_ to be subject to such a challenge anyway. Moreover, asking "the groups most directly involved" for their opinion is not the right thing to do. These grandfathering clauses were not in the ICG report, and were not in the CCWG-Accountability report. There is no basis in any request by anyone for the grandfathering in subsections (B) through (E). The lawyers were supposed to implement the reports, not come up with things that people might want and implement those things. These clauses should be deleted, _point finale_, full stop, period. There is no basis for them in the reports, so they're not allowed. This isn't an obscure point, and the previous justifications offered by the lawyers do not address it. Best regards, A On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 05:27:53PM +0000, Grapsas, Rebecca 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 CCWG’s 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 +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com><mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com><http://www.sidley.com/<http://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 Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>