Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Adler & Colvin Comments on Executive Summary Draft
Dear Co-Chairs: Adler & Colvin’s comments on the Executive Summary are attached; our apologies for missing the deadline (by 110 minutes). As Holly noted, these comments have not been reviewed by or coordinated with Sidley. Similarly, we have not had time to go back through proposals, emails, and meeting notes to confirm our recollection of how various decisions have been made to date, so some comments may reflect the wrong understanding and should be ignored. The mark-up includes both some line edits, and comments in bubbles. We attach a PDF, to ensure the comment bubbles will be visible regardless of users’ software. We agree with Sidley’s overall comments on length and duplication, and more substantively on how particular community powers will be exercised. Given that this is an Executive Summary, you might consider presenting a single full escalation pathway as an illustration only, and then note that the paths will vary as appropriate for the exercise of other community powers. A chart comparing escalation pathways across powers and noting the differing required thresholds for approval at each stage by power, might be more useful to understanding than the separate detailed descriptions of each escalation path provided in this draft. Please let us know how we may assist you further. Rosemary Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com www.adlercolvin.com _____________________________ Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> Date: Tuesday 10 November 2015 at 8:37 p.m. To: "mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, "thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>" <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, "leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, "ACCT-Staff (acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>)" <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, "ICANN@adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>" <ICANN@adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Sidley Comments on Executive Summary Draft Dear Co-Chairs and CCWG, Attached please find Sidley’s comments on the draft Executive Summary. Given the very short window for review we have not had time to coordinate our comments with the Adler firm and apologize for that. Adler will be sending their comments separately. Please note also that given the very short time frame we have not been able to go back and check against the transcripts of the various meetings and therefore are relying on memory for our understanding of where the CCWG has formed consensus (or near consensus) on various issues. Overall we find the Executive Summary overly long with significant redundancies. We think it would benefit from a thorough edit by your professional writers. We also believe that the summary is inaccurate in its description of the community processes with respect to the decisions to: (1) remove individual directors and (2) approve Fundamental Bylaws. (We agree with Jordan’s comments on the Fundamental Bylaws.) We also recommend that a more pointed discussion of the CWG dependencies be added so that the reader can understand the broader context in which the Proposal has been developed. We have also edited errors in the description of the legal framework that applies. We have noted these comments in the draft. Please let us know if you would like to discuss or if we can be of further assistance with this draft. Kind 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@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> 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. ****************************************************************************************************
Hi, Thanks for this review. I have just had the opportunity to read the so-clle "Executive summary" and appreciate many of the comments that are being made. I am obviously too late to review this in any detail and did a quick read through of this commented version. I do want to add to the impression that is a long way from being ready for distribution. Some areas that troubled me in my quick read: - the absence of any discussion of how these changes complete the requirements for transition in terms of separability and enforcing separability decisions by the empowered community. - the lack of discussion of how, without statutory authority, the empowered community still has recourse to the courts if necessary that can withstand the withering influence of so-called fiduciary decisions by the board - the absence of any discussion of how the statutory membership right of inspection is to be included under the empowered community model - a reference in regard to human rights that while there were no statutory obligations on ICANN, the backstop of NTIA was assurance that human rights, especially those for freedom of expression and free flow in information on the Internet, would be respected, and that the bylaw is a way to attempt to replace that NTIA backstop. As this document stands I do not see it as explaining why these accountability issues are necessary when, and if, the NTIA backstop is lost. I think that is essential in an "executive summary", not matter what its length. Thanks avri On 10-Nov-15 22:53, Rosemary E. Fei wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs:
Adler & Colvin’s comments on the Executive Summary are attached; our apologies for missing the deadline (by 110 minutes). As Holly noted, these comments have not been reviewed by or coordinated with Sidley. Similarly, we have not had time to go back through proposals, emails, and meeting notes to confirm our recollection of how various decisions have been made to date, so some comments may reflect the wrong understanding and should be ignored. The mark-up includes both some line edits, and comments in bubbles. We attach a PDF, to ensure the comment bubbles will be visible regardless of users’ software.
We agree with Sidley’s overall comments on length and duplication, and more substantively on how particular community powers will be exercised. Given that this is an Executive Summary, you might consider presenting a single full escalation pathway as an illustration only, and then note that the paths will vary as appropriate for the exercise of other community powers. A chart comparing escalation pathways across powers and noting the differing required thresholds for approval at each stage by power, might be more useful to understanding than the separate detailed descriptions of each escalation path provided in this draft.
Please let us know how we may assist you further.
Rosemary
Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com www.adlercolvin.com
_____________________________
Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email.
*From: *<accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> *Date: *Tuesday 10 November 2015 at 8:37 p.m. *To: *"mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, "thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>" <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, "leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> *Cc: *Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, "ACCT-Staff (acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>)" <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, "ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>" <ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> *Subject: *[CCWG-ACCT] Sidley Comments on Executive Summary Draft
Dear Co-Chairs and CCWG,
Attached please find Sidley’s comments on the draft Executive Summary. Given the very short window for review we have not had time to coordinate our comments with the Adler firm and apologize for that. Adler will be sending their comments separately. Please note also that given the very short time frame we have not been able to go back and check against the transcripts of the various meetings and therefore are relying on memory for our understanding of where the CCWG has formed consensus (or near consensus) on various issues.
Overall we find the Executive Summary overly long with significant redundancies. We think it would benefit from a thorough edit by your professional writers. We also believe that the summary is inaccurate in its description of the community processes with respect to the decisions to: (1) remove individual directors and (2) approve Fundamental Bylaws. (We agree with Jordan’s comments on the Fundamental Bylaws.) We also recommend that a more pointed discussion of the CWG dependencies be added so that the reader can understand the broader context in which the Proposal has been developed. We have also edited errors in the description of the legal framework that applies. We have noted these comments in the draft.
Please let us know if you would like to discuss or if we can be of further assistance with this draft.
Kind 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@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> 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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I certainly share all of Avri's concerns and would like to thank her for articulating them in such clear fashion. We need to be careful with the executive summary: due to time pressures and the holiday season this might be the only thing a number of people read. We need to ensure it is as comprehensive as possible. Ed Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 11, 2015, at 3:17 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for this review.
I have just had the opportunity to read the so-clle "Executive summary" and appreciate many of the comments that are being made. I am obviously too late to review this in any detail and did a quick read through of this commented version. I do want to add to the impression that is a long way from being ready for distribution.
Some areas that troubled me in my quick read:
- the absence of any discussion of how these changes complete the requirements for transition in terms of separability and enforcing separability decisions by the empowered community. - the lack of discussion of how, without statutory authority, the empowered community still has recourse to the courts if necessary that can withstand the withering influence of so-called fiduciary decisions by the board - the absence of any discussion of how the statutory membership right of inspection is to be included under the empowered community model - a reference in regard to human rights that while there were no statutory obligations on ICANN, the backstop of NTIA was assurance that human rights, especially those for freedom of expression and free flow in information on the Internet, would be respected, and that the bylaw is a way to attempt to replace that NTIA backstop.
As this document stands I do not see it as explaining why these accountability issues are necessary when, and if, the NTIA backstop is lost. I think that is essential in an "executive summary", not matter what its length.
Thanks
avri
On 10-Nov-15 22:53, Rosemary E. Fei wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs:
Adler & Colvin’s comments on the Executive Summary are attached; our apologies for missing the deadline (by 110 minutes). As Holly noted, these comments have not been reviewed by or coordinated with Sidley. Similarly, we have not had time to go back through proposals, emails, and meeting notes to confirm our recollection of how various decisions have been made to date, so some comments may reflect the wrong understanding and should be ignored. The mark-up includes both some line edits, and comments in bubbles. We attach a PDF, to ensure the comment bubbles will be visible regardless of users’ software.
We agree with Sidley’s overall comments on length and duplication, and more substantively on how particular community powers will be exercised. Given that this is an Executive Summary, you might consider presenting a single full escalation pathway as an illustration only, and then note that the paths will vary as appropriate for the exercise of other community powers. A chart comparing escalation pathways across powers and noting the differing required thresholds for approval at each stage by power, might be more useful to understanding than the separate detailed descriptions of each escalation path provided in this draft.
Please let us know how we may assist you further.
Rosemary
Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com www.adlercolvin.com
_____________________________
Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email.
*From: *<accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> *Date: *Tuesday 10 November 2015 at 8:37 p.m. *To: *"mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, "thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>" <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, "leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> *Cc: *Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, "ACCT-Staff (acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>)" <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, "ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>" <ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> *Subject: *[CCWG-ACCT] Sidley Comments on Executive Summary Draft
Dear Co-Chairs and CCWG,
Attached please find Sidley’s comments on the draft Executive Summary. Given the very short window for review we have not had time to coordinate our comments with the Adler firm and apologize for that. Adler will be sending their comments separately. Please note also that given the very short time frame we have not been able to go back and check against the transcripts of the various meetings and therefore are relying on memory for our understanding of where the CCWG has formed consensus (or near consensus) on various issues.
Overall we find the Executive Summary overly long with significant redundancies. We think it would benefit from a thorough edit by your professional writers. We also believe that the summary is inaccurate in its description of the community processes with respect to the decisions to: (1) remove individual directors and (2) approve Fundamental Bylaws. (We agree with Jordan’s comments on the Fundamental Bylaws.) We also recommend that a more pointed discussion of the CWG dependencies be added so that the reader can understand the broader context in which the Proposal has been developed. We have also edited errors in the description of the legal framework that applies. We have noted these comments in the draft.
Please let us know if you would like to discuss or if we can be of further assistance with this draft.
Kind 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@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> 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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I appreciate the efforts of both outside law firms, Sidley as well as Adler, to provide useful feedback under difficult circumstances. Those difficulties are self-imposed by a timeline hastily put out post-Dublin with concern mostly for working backwards from a theoretical "drop dead" date rather than careful consideration of whether it afforded the necessary time to develop and then fully explain a substantially revised designator accountability model. Today is Wednesday. The current target date for publishing the Executive Summary (ES) is Sunday, four days away. There seems to be consensus that the current ES draft is repetitive, inaccurate in spots, fails to provide necessary clarity, and needs a lot more work given that it -- rather than the actual language of a full report -- will be the basis of many public comments. I am skeptical that the ES can be put into acceptable final form -- in terms of accuracy, clarity, and more useful descriptions -- within the next four days. (Noting of course that the participants in this effort have nothing else to do in their lives but spend every waking moment devoted to this particular enterprise, and that working at breakneck speed and without sufficient rest and time for reflection is a surefire prescription for a Grade A work product.) But even if it is, it will suffer from the fundamental disability of being an Executive Summary of a proposal which does not yet exist in final form, and of which critical elements -- such as Stress Test 18 relating to GAC "consensus" and the weight its advice must be accorded by the Board, and the Mission statement as it relates to the distinction between necessary and justified ICANN contract compliance enforcement and impermissible "regulation" of Internet use -- remain strongly debated and for which final language does not yet exist. I have reviewed many Executive Summaries over the years, and have seem a wide range of accuracy, comprehensiveness and clarity among them. But never in my life can I recall seeing an Executive Summary published when the underlying document it purported to summarize did not yet exist in final form. This an amazing new concept, though one of questionable legitimacy and usefulness. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Edward Morris Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 10:23 PM To: avri@acm.org Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Adler & Colvin Comments on Executive Summary Draft I certainly share all of Avri's concerns and would like to thank her for articulating them in such clear fashion. We need to be careful with the executive summary: due to time pressures and the holiday season this might be the only thing a number of people read. We need to ensure it is as comprehensive as possible. Ed Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 11, 2015, at 3:17 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for this review.
I have just had the opportunity to read the so-clle "Executive summary" and appreciate many of the comments that are being made. I am obviously too late to review this in any detail and did a quick read through of this commented version. I do want to add to the impression that is a long way from being ready for distribution.
Some areas that troubled me in my quick read:
- the absence of any discussion of how these changes complete the requirements for transition in terms of separability and enforcing separability decisions by the empowered community. - the lack of discussion of how, without statutory authority, the empowered community still has recourse to the courts if necessary that can withstand the withering influence of so-called fiduciary decisions by the board - the absence of any discussion of how the statutory membership right of inspection is to be included under the empowered community model - a reference in regard to human rights that while there were no statutory obligations on ICANN, the backstop of NTIA was assurance that human rights, especially those for freedom of expression and free flow in information on the Internet, would be respected, and that the bylaw is a way to attempt to replace that NTIA backstop.
As this document stands I do not see it as explaining why these accountability issues are necessary when, and if, the NTIA backstop is lost. I think that is essential in an "executive summary", not matter what its length.
Thanks
avri
On 10-Nov-15 22:53, Rosemary E. Fei wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs:
Adler & Colvin’s comments on the Executive Summary are attached; our apologies for missing the deadline (by 110 minutes). As Holly noted, these comments have not been reviewed by or coordinated with Sidley. Similarly, we have not had time to go back through proposals, emails, and meeting notes to confirm our recollection of how various decisions have been made to date, so some comments may reflect the wrong understanding and should be ignored. The mark-up includes both some line edits, and comments in bubbles. We attach a PDF, to ensure the comment bubbles will be visible regardless of users’ software.
We agree with Sidley’s overall comments on length and duplication, and more substantively on how particular community powers will be exercised. Given that this is an Executive Summary, you might consider presenting a single full escalation pathway as an illustration only, and then note that the paths will vary as appropriate for the exercise of other community powers. A chart comparing escalation pathways across powers and noting the differing required thresholds for approval at each stage by power, might be more useful to understanding than the separate detailed descriptions of each escalation path provided in this draft.
Please let us know how we may assist you further.
Rosemary
Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com www.adlercolvin.com
_____________________________
Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email.
*From: *<accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> *Date: *Tuesday 10 November 2015 at 8:37 p.m. *To: *"mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, "thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>" <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, "leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> *Cc: *Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, "ACCT-Staff (acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>)" <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, "ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>" <ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> *Subject: *[CCWG-ACCT] Sidley Comments on Executive Summary Draft
Dear Co-Chairs and CCWG,
Attached please find Sidley’s comments on the draft Executive Summary. Given the very short window for review we have not had time to coordinate our comments with the Adler firm and apologize for that. Adler will be sending their comments separately. Please note also that given the very short time frame we have not been able to go back and check against the transcripts of the various meetings and therefore are relying on memory for our understanding of where the CCWG has formed consensus (or near consensus) on various issues.
Overall we find the Executive Summary overly long with significant redundancies. We think it would benefit from a thorough edit by your professional writers. We also believe that the summary is inaccurate in its description of the community processes with respect to the decisions to: (1) remove individual directors and (2) approve Fundamental Bylaws. (We agree with Jordan’s comments on the Fundamental Bylaws.) We also recommend that a more pointed discussion of the CWG dependencies be added so that the reader can understand the broader context in which the Proposal has been developed. We have also edited errors in the description of the legal framework that applies. We have noted these comments in the draft.
Please let us know if you would like to discuss or if we can be of further assistance with this draft.
Kind 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@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> 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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:13 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for this review.
I have just had the opportunity to read the so-clle "Executive summary" and appreciate many of the comments that are being made. I am obviously too late to review this in any detail and did a quick read through of this commented version. I do want to add to the impression that is a long way from being ready for distribution.
Some areas that troubled me in my quick read:
- the absence of any discussion of how these changes complete the requirements for transition in terms of separability and enforcing separability decisions by the empowered community.
Thanks Avri for noting this and to both counsel for highlighting it. The abscence of discussion of this community power in the draft, with only a single line mentioning it and no explanation (or even a reference) of how it is proposed to work is a huge gap. Thank you, Brenden Kuerbis
- the lack of discussion of how, without statutory authority, the empowered community still has recourse to the courts if necessary that can withstand the withering influence of so-called fiduciary decisions by the board - the absence of any discussion of how the statutory membership right of inspection is to be included under the empowered community model - a reference in regard to human rights that while there were no statutory obligations on ICANN, the backstop of NTIA was assurance that human rights, especially those for freedom of expression and free flow in information on the Internet, would be respected, and that the bylaw is a way to attempt to replace that NTIA backstop.
As this document stands I do not see it as explaining why these accountability issues are necessary when, and if, the NTIA backstop is lost. I think that is essential in an "executive summary", not matter what its length.
Thanks
avri
On 10-Nov-15 22:53, Rosemary E. Fei wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs:
Adler & Colvin’s comments on the Executive Summary are attached; our apologies for missing the deadline (by 110 minutes). As Holly noted, these comments have not been reviewed by or coordinated with Sidley. Similarly, we have not had time to go back through proposals, emails, and meeting notes to confirm our recollection of how various decisions have been made to date, so some comments may reflect the wrong understanding and should be ignored. The mark-up includes both some line edits, and comments in bubbles. We attach a PDF, to ensure the comment bubbles will be visible regardless of users’ software.
We agree with Sidley’s overall comments on length and duplication, and more substantively on how particular community powers will be exercised. Given that this is an Executive Summary, you might consider presenting a single full escalation pathway as an illustration only, and then note that the paths will vary as appropriate for the exercise of other community powers. A chart comparing escalation pathways across powers and noting the differing required thresholds for approval at each stage by power, might be more useful to understanding than the separate detailed descriptions of each escalation path provided in this draft.
Please let us know how we may assist you further.
Rosemary
Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com www.adlercolvin.com
_____________________________
Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email.
*From: *<accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> *Date: *Tuesday 10 November 2015 at 8:37 p.m. *To: *"mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, "thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>" <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, "leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> *Cc: *Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, "ACCT-Staff (acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>)" <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, "ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>" <ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> *Subject: *[CCWG-ACCT] Sidley Comments on Executive Summary Draft
Dear Co-Chairs and CCWG,
Attached please find Sidley’s comments on the draft Executive Summary. Given the very short window for review we have not had time to coordinate our comments with the Adler firm and apologize for that. Adler will be sending their comments separately. Please note also that given the very short time frame we have not been able to go back and check against the transcripts of the various meetings and therefore are relying on memory for our understanding of where the CCWG has formed consensus (or near consensus) on various issues.
Overall we find the Executive Summary overly long with significant redundancies. We think it would benefit from a thorough edit by your professional writers. We also believe that the summary is inaccurate in its description of the community processes with respect to the decisions to: (1) remove individual directors and (2) approve Fundamental Bylaws. (We agree with Jordan’s comments on the Fundamental Bylaws.) We also recommend that a more pointed discussion of the CWG dependencies be added so that the reader can understand the broader context in which the Proposal has been developed. We have also edited errors in the description of the legal framework that applies. We have noted these comments in the draft.
Please let us know if you would like to discuss or if we can be of further assistance with this draft.
Kind 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@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> 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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Agree this needs to be thoroughly addressed in the summary. On 11/11/2015 15:25, Brenden Kuerbis wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:13 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for this review.
I have just had the opportunity to read the so-clle "Executive summary" and appreciate many of the comments that are being made. I am obviously too late to review this in any detail and did a quick read through of this commented version. I do want to add to the impression that is a long way from being ready for distribution.
Some areas that troubled me in my quick read:
- the absence of any discussion of how these changes complete the requirements for transition in terms of separability and enforcing separability decisions by the empowered community.
Thanks Avri for noting this and to both counsel for highlighting it. The abscence of discussion of this community power in the draft, with only a single line mentioning it and no explanation (or even a reference) of how it is proposed to work is a huge gap.
Thank you,
Brenden Kuerbis
- the lack of discussion of how, without statutory authority, the empowered community still has recourse to the courts if necessary that can withstand the withering influence of so-called fiduciary decisions by the board - the absence of any discussion of how the statutory membership right of inspection is to be included under the empowered community model - a reference in regard to human rights that while there were no statutory obligations on ICANN, the backstop of NTIA was assurance that human rights, especially those for freedom of expression and free flow in information on the Internet, would be respected, and that the bylaw is a way to attempt to replace that NTIA backstop.
As this document stands I do not see it as explaining why these accountability issues are necessary when, and if, the NTIA backstop is lost. I think that is essential in an "executive summary", not matter what its length.
Thanks
avri
On 10-Nov-15 22:53, Rosemary E. Fei wrote: > > Dear Co-Chairs: > > Adler & Colvin’s comments on the Executive Summary are attached; our > apologies for missing the deadline (by 110 minutes). As Holly noted, > these comments have not been reviewed by or coordinated with Sidley. > Similarly, we have not had time to go back through proposals, emails, > and meeting notes to confirm our recollection of how various decisions > have been made to date, so some comments may reflect the wrong > understanding and should be ignored. The mark-up includes both some > line edits, and comments in bubbles. We attach a PDF, to ensure the > comment bubbles will be visible regardless of users’ software. > > We agree with Sidley’s overall comments on length and duplication, and > more substantively on how particular community powers will be > exercised. Given that this is an Executive Summary, you might > consider presenting a single full escalation pathway as an > illustration only, and then note that the paths will vary as > appropriate for the exercise of other community powers. A chart > comparing escalation pathways across powers and noting the differing > required thresholds for approval at each stage by power, might be more > useful to understanding than the separate detailed descriptions of > each escalation path provided in this draft. > > Please let us know how we may assist you further. > > Rosemary > > Rosemary E. Fei > Adler & Colvin > 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 > San Francisco, CA 94104 > 415/421-7555 <tel:415%2F421-7555> (phone) > 415/421-0712 <tel:415%2F421-0712> (fax) > rfei@adlercolvin.com <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> > www.adlercolvin.com <http://www.adlercolvin.com> > > > > > > _____________________________ > > Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City > and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before > you print this email. > > > > *From: *<accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>> on behalf > of "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> > <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>>> > *Date: *Tuesday 10 November 2015 at 8:37 p.m. > *To: *"mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>" > <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>>, > "thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>" <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> > <mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, "leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> > <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> > <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>> > *Cc: *Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com> > <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>>, "ACCT-Staff > (acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>)" > <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>>, > "ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>" > <ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>>, Accountability > Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>> > *Subject: *[CCWG-ACCT] Sidley Comments on Executive Summary Draft > > > > Dear Co-Chairs and CCWG, > > > > Attached please find Sidley’s comments on the draft Executive > Summary. Given the very short window for review we have not had time > to coordinate our comments with the Adler firm and apologize for > that. Adler will be sending their comments separately. Please note > also that given the very short time frame we have not been able to go > back and check against the transcripts of the various meetings and > therefore are relying on memory for our understanding of where the > CCWG has formed consensus (or near consensus) on various issues. > > > > Overall we find the Executive Summary overly long with significant > redundancies. We think it would benefit from a thorough edit by your > professional writers. We also believe that the summary is inaccurate > in its description of the community processes with respect to the > decisions to: (1) remove individual directors and (2) approve > Fundamental Bylaws. (We agree with Jordan’s comments on the > Fundamental Bylaws.) We also recommend that a more pointed discussion > of the CWG dependencies be added so that the reader can understand the > broader context in which the Proposal has been developed. We have > also edited errors in the description of the legal framework that > applies. We have noted these comments in the draft. > > > > Please let us know if you would like to discuss or if we can be of > further assistance with this draft. > > > > Kind 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 <tel:%2B1%20212%20839%205853> > holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto: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/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@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
So, besides the damning criticism on substance, both *BOTH* our law firms politely point out that out timeline (deadline) is not conducive. And not only their time to review, but also the time to write this "summary". el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 11 Nov 2015, at 03:53, Rosemary E. Fei <rfei@adlercolvin.com> wrote:
[...]
Adler & Colvin’s comments on the Executive Summary are attached; our apologies for missing the deadline (by 110 minutes). As Holly noted, these comments have not been reviewed by or coordinated with Sidley. Similarly, we have not had time to go back through proposals, emails, and meeting notes to confirm our recollection of how various decisions have been made to date, so some comments may reflect the wrong understanding and should be ignored. [...]
The Executive Summary CANNOT be a case of "there's never time to do it right, but always time to do it again." We have one shot to get this right. If we fire before we aim, we will shoot ourselves in the collective foot. That said, it's a fairly credible first draft, given the circumstances. Pretending that it's ready for prime time after a 24 hour review period is dangerously delusional. My younger son is a gifted writer. In middle school English, he could get away with handing in first drafts. In high school, he got his head handed to him for doing so -- now he knows better. We are not in middle school anymore. Greg On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
So,
besides the damning criticism on substance, both *BOTH* our law firms politely point out that out timeline (deadline) is not conducive.
And not only their time to review, but also the time to write this "summary".
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 11 Nov 2015, at 03:53, Rosemary E. Fei <rfei@adlercolvin.com> wrote:
[...]
Adler & Colvin’s comments on the Executive Summary are attached; our apologies for missing the deadline (by 110 minutes). As Holly noted, these comments have not been reviewed by or coordinated with Sidley. Similarly, we have not had time to go back through proposals, emails, and meeting notes to confirm our recollection of how various decisions have been made to date, so some comments may reflect the wrong understanding and should be ignored.
[...]
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (8)
-
Avri Doria -
Brenden Kuerbis -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Edward Morris -
Greg Shatan -
Matthew Shears -
Phil Corwin -
Rosemary E. Fei