Jordan, that is correct. Except with respect to budgets and plans, the draft Bylaws do not allow the rationale provided to give rise to a restriction or limitation on the
use of a community power.
The rationale requirements relating to items other than budgets and plans are in the nature of information-sharing (i.e., letting the other Decisional Participants know why
a petition has been accepted). Specifically, Annex D, Section 2.2(c) requires that a rationale be included in the Rejection Action Petition Notice – this is the notice that a Decisional Participant that has accepted a petition provides to all the Decisional
Participants and the Secretary. The other Decisional Participants then decide whether or not to support the petition, so as to require a Community Forum. The Decisional Participants decide whether or not to support a petition in accordance with their own
procedures; the ICANN Bylaws do not dictate what those procedures must be. Presumably they would consider the rationale that has been included in the petition notice but that is not a requirement under the ICANN Bylaws.
If a sufficient number of Decisional Participants support the petition, Annex D, Section 2.2(d) requires that the Rejection Action Petitioning Decisional Participant post a Rejection Action Supported Petition that includes, among other things, “a supporting
rationale in reasonable detail.” Again, the ICANN Bylaws do not specify how the “supporting rationale” is to be arrived at or drafted; this would be for the Decisional Participants to figure out. The Rejection Action Supported Petition would then be discussed
during the Community Forum pursuant to Annex D, Section 2.3(a). This last requirement was included to reflect Annex 2, Paragraph 32, first bullet, which provides that the “purpose of the Community Forum is information-sharing (the rationale for the petition,
etc.) and airing views on the petition by the community…”
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
www.sidley.com
From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz]
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 12:04 AM
To: Grapsas, Rebecca
Cc: Accountability Cross Community; Sidley ICANN CCWG; ICANN@adlercolvin.com
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' Comments on CCWG Comments on Draft New ICANN Bylaws
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 <rebecca.grapsas@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 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
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
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
jordan@InternetNZ.net.nz |
www.InternetNZ.nz
A better world through a better Internet