Draft ICANN Bylaws Draft of April 20, 2016: CCWG=Accountability and CWG-Stewardship Certifications
CCWG Accountability April 20, 2016 Dear CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, Members, Participants and Staff, We have reviewed the Proposed Draft ICANN Bylaws, dated April 20, 2016 (“Proposed Draft Bylaws”), a copy of which is attached. We believe that the Proposed Draft Bylaws are consistent with the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (“CCWG-Accountability”) Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations (23 February 2016) relating to the IANA Stewardship Transition. Accordingly, we recommend that the Proposed Draft Bylaws be posted to the community for review. Kind regards, Holly J. Gregory and Rosemary E. Fei Sidley Austin LLP and Adler & Colvin CWG-Stewardship April 20, 2016 Dear CWG Co-Chairs, Members, Participants and Staff, We have reviewed the Proposed Draft ICANN Bylaws, dated April 20, 2016 (“Proposed Draft Bylaws”), a copy of which is attached. We believe that the Proposed Draft Bylaws are consistent with the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (“CWG-Stewardship”) Final Proposal (11 June 2015) relating to the IANA Stewardship Transition. Accordingly, we recommend that the Proposed Draft Bylaws be posted to the community for review. Kind regards, Holly J. Gregory and Sharon R. Flanagan Sidley Austin LLP 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/> [SIDLEY] **************************************************************************************************** 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. ****************************************************************************************************
Fantastic news. Thanks to all who worked so hard to meet this deadline! Best, Keith On Apr 20, 2016, at 8:31 PM, Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> wrote: CCWG Accountability April 20, 2016 Dear CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, Members, Participants and Staff, We have reviewed the Proposed Draft ICANN Bylaws, dated April 20, 2016 (“Proposed Draft Bylaws”), a copy of which is attached. We believe that the Proposed Draft Bylaws are consistent with the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (“CCWG-Accountability”) Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations (23 February 2016) relating to the IANA Stewardship Transition. Accordingly, we recommend that the Proposed Draft Bylaws be posted to the community for review. Kind regards, Holly J. Gregory and Rosemary E. Fei Sidley Austin LLP and Adler & Colvin CWG-Stewardship April 20, 2016 Dear CWG Co-Chairs, Members, Participants and Staff, We have reviewed the Proposed Draft ICANN Bylaws, dated April 20, 2016 (“Proposed Draft Bylaws”), a copy of which is attached. We believe that the Proposed Draft Bylaws are consistent with the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (“CWG-Stewardship”) Final Proposal (11 June 2015) relating to the IANA Stewardship Transition. Accordingly, we recommend that the Proposed Draft Bylaws be posted to the community for review. Kind regards, Holly J. Gregory and Sharon R. Flanagan Sidley Austin LLP 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> http://www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com/> [SIDLEY] **************************************************************************************************** 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. **************************************************************************************************** <ICANN - Bylaws - April Update Draft - 513 pm 20 April.docx> _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks for this. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 20 Apr 2016 20:31, "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory@sidley.com> wrote:
*CCWG Accountability*
April 20, 2016
Dear CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, Members, Participants and Staff,
We have reviewed the Proposed Draft ICANN Bylaws, dated April 20, 2016 (“Proposed Draft Bylaws”), a copy of which is attached. We believe that the Proposed Draft Bylaws are consistent with the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (“CCWG-Accountability”) Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations (23 February 2016) relating to the IANA Stewardship Transition. Accordingly, we recommend that the Proposed Draft Bylaws be posted to the community for review.
Kind regards,
Holly J. Gregory and Rosemary E. Fei
Sidley Austin LLP and Adler & Colvin
*CWG-Stewardship*
April 20, 2016
Dear CWG Co-Chairs, Members, Participants and Staff,
We have reviewed the Proposed Draft ICANN Bylaws, dated April 20, 2016 (“Proposed Draft Bylaws”), a copy of which is attached. We believe that the Proposed Draft Bylaws are consistent with the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (“CWG-Stewardship”) Final Proposal (11 June 2015) relating to the IANA Stewardship Transition. Accordingly, we recommend that the Proposed Draft Bylaws be posted to the community for review.
Kind regards,
Holly J. Gregory and Sharon R. Flanagan
Sidley Austin LLP
*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
*[image: SIDLEY]*
**************************************************************************************************** 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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client
Dear CCWG Co-chairs, Members, Participants and Staff, Attached please find a chart that maps the CCWG-Accountability Final Supplemental Proposal to the April 20, 2016 draft Bylaws. Also attached is a redline to the April 7 version of the Bylaws that circulated previously. We hope you find these helpful to your review. When the draft Bylaws are posted for public comment, we understand that ICANN Legal will also provide a redline to the current Bylaws. Kind regards, Holly and Rosemary and the Sidley and Adler Teams 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/> [SIDLEY] From: Gregory, Holly Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 8:30 PM To: 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx'; 'Mathieu Weill'; thomas@rickert.net; bylaws-coord@icann.org; 'jrobinson@afilias.info'; 'Lise Fuhr'; 'Client Committee'; 'cwg-client@icann.org' Cc: ccwg-accountability5@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Rosemary E. Fei (rfei@adlercolvin.com); Flanagan, Sharon; ICANN@adlercolvin.com; Sidley ICANN CCWG Subject: Draft ICANN Bylaws Draft of April 20,2016: CCWG=Accountability and CWG-Stewardship Certifications CCWG Accountability April 20, 2016 Dear CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, Members, Participants and Staff, We have reviewed the Proposed Draft ICANN Bylaws, dated April 20, 2016 (“Proposed Draft Bylaws”), a copy of which is attached. We believe that the Proposed Draft Bylaws are consistent with the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (“CCWG-Accountability”) Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations (23 February 2016) relating to the IANA Stewardship Transition. Accordingly, we recommend that the Proposed Draft Bylaws be posted to the community for review. Kind regards, Holly J. Gregory and Rosemary E. Fei Sidley Austin LLP and Adler & Colvin CWG-Stewardship April 20, 2016 Dear CWG Co-Chairs, Members, Participants and Staff, We have reviewed the Proposed Draft ICANN Bylaws, dated April 20, 2016 (“Proposed Draft Bylaws”), a copy of which is attached. We believe that the Proposed Draft Bylaws are consistent with the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (“CWG-Stewardship”) Final Proposal (11 June 2015) relating to the IANA Stewardship Transition. Accordingly, we recommend that the Proposed Draft Bylaws be posted to the community for review. Kind regards, Holly J. Gregory and Sharon R. Flanagan Sidley Austin LLP 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/> [SIDLEY] **************************************************************************************************** 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. ****************************************************************************************************
Dear Co-Chairs, Bylaws Coordinating Group, CCWG-Accountability Members and Participants and Staff: Attached please find our comments on the CCWG Comment – Version 2. We note in reviewing Version 2 that certain of our substantive comments on the last version were not addressed. In addition, conforming changes that we identified and several corrections of typographical errors were also not addressed. We also note that several of the new items added in Version 2 are either erroneously stated or are based on a misunderstanding of the CCWG Proposal and how it is reflected in the Draft Bylaws. Our interest in providing these comments to you is to assure that the CCWG Comment provides clear guidance (to us) for necessary revisions to the Draft Bylaws and to also assure that the CCWG Comment is accurate and consistent in its references to the Proposal, so that other readers may find it compelling and authoritative. It is in that spirit that we request that if you have questions or concerns about any of our comments, you schedule a call so that we may discuss. We ask that Staff please check to see whether this email is posted on the CCWG email list. If it does not appear, please post it. 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> 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, On comment 2 in this comments-on-the-comment document, it says this: Lawyers’ comment: What is the recommendation and what direction is the CCWG-Accountability providing to the legal drafters? In our May 7, 2016 comments on the draft CCWG-Accountability comment letter, we suggested a recommendation: “We request that the groups most directly involved with the documents addressed in subsections (B) through (E) weigh in on the need to include grandfathering language for those documents. Depending on such input, a final determination should be made as to whether those documents should be included in the grandfathering provision.” I don't get what's obscure here. The CCWG's comment is that the mentioned subsections have no justification in the CCWG Proposal. There's precisely one thing to do in such a case: remove the subsection. It would be helpful, at least to me, to understand why the drafters do not understand this. The time for substantive change to the Proposal is over. If the Proposal has deficiencies, we will have to cope with them later. The task is to implement the Proposal in bylaws language, and that's it. Anything not founded in either the Proposal or the facts of relevant law is not something that should appear in any changed bylaws text. The community consensus must be treated as fundamental, or all legitimacy of this process will be lost. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
The Recommendation does not currently say "remove." If that is what CCWG wants, then the Recommendation should say so. We are seeking clarity about what the CCWG recommendation is. Sent with Good (www.good.com) ________________________________ From: Andrew Sullivan Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 09:58:15 AM To: Gregory, Holly Cc: 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx'; 'Mathieu Weill'; 'thomas@rickert.net'; 'ICANN@adlercolvin.com'; 'accountability-cross-community@icann.org'; Sidley ICANN CCWG; 'ccwg-accountability5@icann.org'; 'bylaws-coord@icann.org' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2 Hi, On comment 2 in this comments-on-the-comment document, it says this: Lawyers’ comment: What is the recommendation and what direction is the CCWG-Accountability providing to the legal drafters? In our May 7, 2016 comments on the draft CCWG-Accountability comment letter, we suggested a recommendation: “We request that the groups most directly involved with the documents addressed in subsections (B) through (E) weigh in on the need to include grandfathering language for those documents. Depending on such input, a final determination should be made as to whether those documents should be included in the grandfathering provision.” I don't get what's obscure here. The CCWG's comment is that the mentioned subsections have no justification in the CCWG Proposal. There's precisely one thing to do in such a case: remove the subsection. It would be helpful, at least to me, to understand why the drafters do not understand this. The time for substantive change to the Proposal is over. If the Proposal has deficiencies, we will have to cope with them later. The task is to implement the Proposal in bylaws language, and that's it. Anything not founded in either the Proposal or the facts of relevant law is not something that should appear in any changed bylaws text. The community consensus must be treated as fundamental, or all legitimacy of this process will be lost. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.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. ****************************************************************************************************
I agree with Andrew. __________ ________________________________ 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 12, 2016, at 11:13 AM, Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> wrote: The Recommendation does not currently say "remove." If that is what CCWG wants, then the Recommendation should say so. We are seeking clarity about what the CCWG recommendation is. Sent with Good (www.good.com<http://www.good.com>) ________________________________ From: Andrew Sullivan Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 09:58:15 AM To: Gregory, Holly Cc: 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>'; 'Mathieu Weill'; 'thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>'; 'ICANN@adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>'; 'accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>'; Sidley ICANN CCWG; 'ccwg-accountability5@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>'; 'bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2 Hi, On comment 2 in this comments-on-the-comment document, it says this: Lawyers’ comment: What is the recommendation and what direction is the CCWG-Accountability providing to the legal drafters? In our May 7, 2016 comments on the draft CCWG-Accountability comment letter, we suggested a recommendation: “We request that the groups most directly involved with the documents addressed in subsections (B) through (E) weigh in on the need to include grandfathering language for those documents. Depending on such input, a final determination should be made as to whether those documents should be included in the grandfathering provision.” I don't get what's obscure here. The CCWG's comment is that the mentioned subsections have no justification in the CCWG Proposal. There's precisely one thing to do in such a case: remove the subsection. It would be helpful, at least to me, to understand why the drafters do not understand this. The time for substantive change to the Proposal is over. If the Proposal has deficiencies, we will have to cope with them later. The task is to implement the Proposal in bylaws language, and that's it. Anything not founded in either the Proposal or the facts of relevant law is not something that should appear in any changed bylaws text. The community consensus must be treated as fundamental, or all legitimacy of this process will be lost. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.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
I also believe the recommendation of the CCWG was to remove subsections B-E. We did have representatives (or at least members) of the directly affected communities (i.e., numbers and protocols) on the call and they concurred in this recommendation. Greg On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Schaefer, Brett < Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
I agree with Andrew.
__________
________________________________ 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 12, 2016, at 11:13 AM, Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> wrote:
The Recommendation does not currently say "remove." If that is what CCWG wants, then the Recommendation should say so. We are seeking clarity about what the CCWG recommendation is.
Sent with Good (www.good.com<http://www.good.com>)
________________________________ From: Andrew Sullivan Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 09:58:15 AM To: Gregory, Holly Cc: 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>'; 'Mathieu Weill'; 'thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>'; ' ICANN@adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>'; ' accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-community@icann.org>'; Sidley ICANN CCWG; ' ccwg-accountability5@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>'; ' bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2
Hi,
On comment 2 in this comments-on-the-comment document, it says this:
Lawyers’ comment: What is the recommendation and what direction is the CCWG-Accountability providing to the legal drafters? In our May 7, 2016 comments on the draft CCWG-Accountability comment letter, we suggested a recommendation: “We request that the groups most directly involved with the documents addressed in subsections (B) through (E) weigh in on the need to include grandfathering language for those documents. Depending on such input, a final determination should be made as to whether those documents should be included in the grandfathering provision.”
I don't get what's obscure here. The CCWG's comment is that the mentioned subsections have no justification in the CCWG Proposal. There's precisely one thing to do in such a case: remove the subsection. It would be helpful, at least to me, to understand why the drafters do not understand this.
The time for substantive change to the Proposal is over. If the Proposal has deficiencies, we will have to cope with them later. The task is to implement the Proposal in bylaws language, and that's it. Anything not founded in either the Proposal or the facts of relevant law is not something that should appear in any changed bylaws text. The community consensus must be treated as fundamental, or all legitimacy of this process will be lost.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear All: I have to second Holly's response here. I, too, read the recommendation in the CCWG's draft public comment, and wondered why it didn't just say "remove". If it had, we would not have asked for clarification. What we did not understand, and what was obscure to us, was why that was not the recommendation, given the content of the rest of the comment. To be clear, we have no objection on legal grounds to removing the items of concern from grandfathering, as long as that is what the CCWG agrees should be done. Rosemary -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 7:58 AM To: Holly Gregory Cc: 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx'; 'Mathieu Weill'; 'thomas@rickert.net'; ICANN-Adler; 'accountability-cross-community@icann.org'; Sidley ICANN CCWG; 'ccwg-accountability5@icann.org'; 'bylaws-coord@icann.org' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2 Hi, On comment 2 in this comments-on-the-comment document, it says this: Lawyers’ comment: What is the recommendation and what direction is the CCWG-Accountability providing to the legal drafters? In our May 7, 2016 comments on the draft CCWG-Accountability comment letter, we suggested a recommendation: “We request that the groups most directly involved with the documents addressed in subsections (B) through (E) weigh in on the need to include grandfathering language for those documents. Depending on such input, a final determination should be made as to whether those documents should be included in the grandfathering provision.” I don't get what's obscure here. The CCWG's comment is that the mentioned subsections have no justification in the CCWG Proposal. There's precisely one thing to do in such a case: remove the subsection. It would be helpful, at least to me, to understand why the drafters do not understand this. The time for substantive change to the Proposal is over. If the Proposal has deficiencies, we will have to cope with them later. The task is to implement the Proposal in bylaws language, and that's it. Anything not founded in either the Proposal or the facts of relevant law is not something that should appear in any changed bylaws text. The community consensus must be treated as fundamental, or all legitimacy of this process will be lost. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Thanks. FWIW, I certainly think the text should say, "Remove this." A On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:25:18PM +0000, Rosemary E. Fei wrote:
Dear All:
I have to second Holly's response here. I, too, read the recommendation in the CCWG's draft public comment, and wondered why it didn't just say "remove". If it had, we would not have asked for clarification. What we did not understand, and what was obscure to us, was why that was not the recommendation, given the content of the rest of the comment.
To be clear, we have no objection on legal grounds to removing the items of concern from grandfathering, as long as that is what the CCWG agrees should be done.
Rosemary
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 7:58 AM To: Holly Gregory Cc: 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx'; 'Mathieu Weill'; 'thomas@rickert.net'; ICANN-Adler; 'accountability-cross-community@icann.org'; Sidley ICANN CCWG; 'ccwg-accountability5@icann.org'; 'bylaws-coord@icann.org' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2
Hi,
On comment 2 in this comments-on-the-comment document, it says this:
Lawyers’ comment: What is the recommendation and what direction is the CCWG-Accountability providing to the legal drafters? In our May 7, 2016 comments on the draft CCWG-Accountability comment letter, we suggested a recommendation: “We request that the groups most directly involved with the documents addressed in subsections (B) through (E) weigh in on the need to include grandfathering language for those documents. Depending on such input, a final determination should be made as to whether those documents should be included in the grandfathering provision.”
I don't get what's obscure here. The CCWG's comment is that the mentioned subsections have no justification in the CCWG Proposal. There's precisely one thing to do in such a case: remove the subsection. It would be helpful, at least to me, to understand why the drafters do not understand this.
The time for substantive change to the Proposal is over. If the Proposal has deficiencies, we will have to cope with them later. The task is to implement the Proposal in bylaws language, and that's it. Anything not founded in either the Proposal or the facts of relevant law is not something that should appear in any changed bylaws text. The community consensus must be treated as fundamental, or all legitimacy of this process will be lost.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
agree On 12-May-16 12:26, 'Andrew Sullivan' wrote:
Thanks. FWIW, I certainly think the text should say, "Remove this."
A
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:25:18PM +0000, Rosemary E. Fei wrote:
Dear All:
I have to second Holly's response here. I, too, read the recommendation in the CCWG's draft public comment, and wondered why it didn't just say "remove". If it had, we would not have asked for clarification. What we did not understand, and what was obscure to us, was why that was not the recommendation, given the content of the rest of the comment.
To be clear, we have no objection on legal grounds to removing the items of concern from grandfathering, as long as that is what the CCWG agrees should be done.
Rosemary
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 7:58 AM To: Holly Gregory Cc: 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx'; 'Mathieu Weill'; 'thomas@rickert.net'; ICANN-Adler; 'accountability-cross-community@icann.org'; Sidley ICANN CCWG; 'ccwg-accountability5@icann.org'; 'bylaws-coord@icann.org' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2
Hi,
On comment 2 in this comments-on-the-comment document, it says this:
Lawyers’ comment: What is the recommendation and what direction is the CCWG-Accountability providing to the legal drafters? In our May 7, 2016 comments on the draft CCWG-Accountability comment letter, we suggested a recommendation: “We request that the groups most directly involved with the documents addressed in subsections (B) through (E) weigh in on the need to include grandfathering language for those documents. Depending on such input, a final determination should be made as to whether those documents should be included in the grandfathering provision.”
I don't get what's obscure here. The CCWG's comment is that the mentioned subsections have no justification in the CCWG Proposal. There's precisely one thing to do in such a case: remove the subsection. It would be helpful, at least to me, to understand why the drafters do not understand this.
The time for substantive change to the Proposal is over. If the Proposal has deficiencies, we will have to cope with them later. The task is to implement the Proposal in bylaws language, and that's it. Anything not founded in either the Proposal or the facts of relevant law is not something that should appear in any changed bylaws text. The community consensus must be treated as fundamental, or all legitimacy of this process will be lost.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
+1 but it's certainly the Chair's call to communicate the needful to the legal team. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 12 May 2016 17:27, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Thanks. FWIW, I certainly think the text should say, "Remove this."
A
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:25:18PM +0000, Rosemary E. Fei wrote:
Dear All:
I have to second Holly's response here. I, too, read the recommendation in the CCWG's draft public comment, and wondered why it didn't just say "remove". If it had, we would not have asked for clarification. What we did not understand, and what was obscure to us, was why that was not the recommendation, given the content of the rest of the comment.
To be clear, we have no objection on legal grounds to removing the items of concern from grandfathering, as long as that is what the CCWG agrees should be done.
Rosemary
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 7:58 AM To: Holly Gregory Cc: 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx'; 'Mathieu Weill'; 'thomas@rickert.net'; ICANN-Adler; 'accountability-cross-community@icann.org'; Sidley ICANN CCWG; 'ccwg-accountability5@icann.org'; 'bylaws-coord@icann.org' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2
Hi,
On comment 2 in this comments-on-the-comment document, it says this:
Lawyers’ comment: What is the recommendation and what direction is the CCWG-Accountability providing to the legal drafters? In our May 7, 2016 comments on the draft CCWG-Accountability comment letter, we suggested a recommendation: “We request that the groups most directly involved with the documents addressed in subsections (B) through (E) weigh in on the need to include grandfathering language for those documents. Depending on such input, a final determination should be made as to whether those documents should be included in the grandfathering provision.”
I don't get what's obscure here. The CCWG's comment is that the mentioned subsections have no justification in the CCWG Proposal. There's precisely one thing to do in such a case: remove the subsection. It would be helpful, at least to me, to understand why the drafters do not understand this.
The time for substantive change to the Proposal is over. If the Proposal has deficiencies, we will have to cope with them later. The task is to implement the Proposal in bylaws language, and that's it. Anything not founded in either the Proposal or the facts of relevant law is not something that should appear in any changed bylaws text. The community consensus must be treated as fundamental, or all legitimacy of this process will be lost.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
We reiterate: if the instruction is to remove the language then the recommendation should be to remove the language. Sent with Good (www.good.com) ________________________________ From: Seun Ojedeji Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 12:55:29 PM To: Andrew Sullivan Cc: Rosemary E. Fei; Thomas Rickert; ccwg-accountability5@icann.org; bylaws-coord@icann.org; Sidley ICANN CCWG; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; ICANN-Adler Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2 +1 but it's certainly the Chair's call to communicate the needful to the legal team. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 12 May 2016 17:27, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote: Thanks. FWIW, I certainly think the text should say, "Remove this." A On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:25:18PM +0000, Rosemary E. Fei wrote:
Dear All:
I have to second Holly's response here. I, too, read the recommendation in the CCWG's draft public comment, and wondered why it didn't just say "remove". If it had, we would not have asked for clarification. What we did not understand, and what was obscure to us, was why that was not the recommendation, given the content of the rest of the comment.
To be clear, we have no objection on legal grounds to removing the items of concern from grandfathering, as long as that is what the CCWG agrees should be done.
Rosemary
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 7:58 AM To: Holly Gregory Cc: 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>'; 'Mathieu Weill'; 'thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>'; ICANN-Adler; 'accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>'; Sidley ICANN CCWG; 'ccwg-accountability5@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>'; 'bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2
Hi,
On comment 2 in this comments-on-the-comment document, it says this:
Lawyers’ comment: What is the recommendation and what direction is the CCWG-Accountability providing to the legal drafters? In our May 7, 2016 comments on the draft CCWG-Accountability comment letter, we suggested a recommendation: “We request that the groups most directly involved with the documents addressed in subsections (B) through (E) weigh in on the need to include grandfathering language for those documents. Depending on such input, a final determination should be made as to whether those documents should be included in the grandfathering provision.”
I don't get what's obscure here. The CCWG's comment is that the mentioned subsections have no justification in the CCWG Proposal. There's precisely one thing to do in such a case: remove the subsection. It would be helpful, at least to me, to understand why the drafters do not understand this.
The time for substantive change to the Proposal is over. If the Proposal has deficiencies, we will have to cope with them later. The task is to implement the Proposal in bylaws language, and that's it. Anything not founded in either the Proposal or the facts of relevant law is not something that should appear in any changed bylaws text. The community consensus must be treated as fundamental, or all legitimacy of this process will be lost.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
-- 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=qsVVNEijGn5VaSFaMoL5f0pKfzUx8abcOUMCW3IEwuU&s=zj8D6f4Ukj094yM3OECPlWe5yu_75aj3WArq7NCf8BE&e=> **************************************************************************************************** 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. ****************************************************************************************************
I think this reflects an issue in the drafting process for the comment, which resulted in several less-than-perfect translations of the CCWG's decisions into the draft comment. That's why we have an iterative process of review and comment, since we can't all be part of the process where the words are first being put on the "page" (screen). It would be a mistake to take the draft comment as gospel. This is not to impugn the efforts of those involved. We are all running hard and fast, and that means that you have to circle back and fix something a little more often than if you were in a relaxed work mode. Greg On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com> wrote: > We reiterate: if the instruction is to remove the language then the > recommendation should be to remove the language. > > > > Sent with Good (www.good.com) > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Seun Ojedeji > *Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2016 12:55:29 PM > *To:* Andrew Sullivan > *Cc:* Rosemary E. Fei; Thomas Rickert; ccwg-accountability5@icann.org; > bylaws-coord@icann.org; Sidley ICANN CCWG; > accountability-cross-community@icann.org; ICANN-Adler > > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment > - Version 2 > > +1 but it's certainly the Chair's call to communicate the needful to the > legal team. > > Regards > > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > On 12 May 2016 17:27, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: > >> Thanks. FWIW, I certainly think the text should say, "Remove this." >> >> A >> >> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:25:18PM +0000, Rosemary E. Fei wrote: >> > Dear All: >> > >> > I have to second Holly's response here. I, too, read the >> recommendation in the CCWG's draft public comment, and wondered why it >> didn't just say "remove". If it had, we would not have asked for >> clarification. What we did not understand, and what was obscure to us, was >> why that was not the recommendation, given the content of the rest of the >> comment. >> > >> > To be clear, we have no objection on legal grounds to removing the >> items of concern from grandfathering, as long as that is what the CCWG >> agrees should be done. >> > >> > Rosemary >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] >> > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 7:58 AM >> > To: Holly Gregory >> > Cc: 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx'; 'Mathieu Weill'; 'thomas@rickert.net'; >> ICANN-Adler; 'accountability-cross-community@icann.org'; Sidley ICANN >> CCWG; 'ccwg-accountability5@icann.org'; 'bylaws-coord@icann.org' >> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment >> - Version 2 >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > On comment 2 in this comments-on-the-comment document, it says this: >> > >> > Lawyers’ comment: What is the recommendation and what direction is >> > the CCWG-Accountability providing to the legal drafters? In our >> > May 7, 2016 comments on the draft CCWG-Accountability comment >> > letter, we suggested a recommendation: “We request that the groups >> > most directly involved with the documents addressed in subsections >> > (B) through (E) weigh in on the need to include grandfathering >> > language for those documents. Depending on such input, a final >> > determination should be made as to whether those documents should >> > be included in the grandfathering provision.” >> > >> > I don't get what's obscure here. The CCWG's comment is that the >> mentioned subsections have no justification in the CCWG Proposal. >> > There's precisely one thing to do in such a case: remove the >> subsection. It would be helpful, at least to me, to understand why the >> drafters do not understand this. >> > >> > The time for substantive change to the Proposal is over. If the >> Proposal has deficiencies, we will have to cope with them later. The task >> is to implement the Proposal in bylaws language, and that's it. >> > Anything not founded in either the Proposal or the facts of relevant >> law is not something that should appear in any changed bylaws text. >> > The community consensus must be treated as fundamental, or all >> legitimacy of this process will be lost. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > >> > A >> > >> > -- >> > Andrew Sullivan >> > ajs@anvilwalrusden.com >> > >> >> -- >> Andrew Sullivan >> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=qsVVNEijGn5VaSFaMoL5f0pKfzUx8abcOUMCW3IEwuU&s=zj8D6f4Ukj094yM3OECPlWe5yu_75aj3WArq7NCf8BE&e=> >> > > > > **************************************************************************************************** > 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 > >
Hi all, So, to be clear, what is requested here is to add the following sentence at the end of item 2.3 : As a consequence, our group’s recommendation is to remove provisions B, C, D and E of Section 1.1 (d)(ii). Is that correct ? Best Mathieu De : bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org [mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Greg Shatan Envoyé : jeudi 12 mai 2016 21:28 À : Gregory, Holly Cc : ICANN-Adler; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Sidley ICANN CCWG; ccwg-accountability5@icann.org; bylaws-coord@icann.org; Seun Ojedeji Objet : Re: [bylaws-coord] [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2 I think this reflects an issue in the drafting process for the comment, which resulted in several less-than-perfect translations of the CCWG's decisions into the draft comment. That's why we have an iterative process of review and comment, since we can't all be part of the process where the words are first being put on the "page" (screen). It would be a mistake to take the draft comment as gospel. This is not to impugn the efforts of those involved. We are all running hard and fast, and that means that you have to circle back and fix something a little more often than if you were in a relaxed work mode. Greg On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com> wrote: We reiterate: if the instruction is to remove the language then the recommendation should be to remove the language. Sent with Good (www.good.com) _____ From: Seun Ojedeji Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 12:55:29 PM To: Andrew Sullivan Cc: Rosemary E. Fei; Thomas Rickert; ccwg-accountability5@icann.org; bylaws-coord@icann.org; Sidley ICANN CCWG; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; ICANN-Adler Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2 +1 but it's certainly the Chair's call to communicate the needful to the legal team. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 12 May 2016 17:27, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: Thanks. FWIW, I certainly think the text should say, "Remove this." A On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:25:18PM +0000, Rosemary E. Fei wrote:
Dear All:
I have to second Holly's response here. I, too, read the recommendation in the CCWG's draft public comment, and wondered why it didn't just say "remove". If it had, we would not have asked for clarification. What we did not understand, and what was obscure to us, was why that was not the recommendation, given the content of the rest of the comment.
To be clear, we have no objection on legal grounds to removing the items of concern from grandfathering, as long as that is what the CCWG agrees should be done.
Rosemary
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 7:58 AM To: Holly Gregory Cc: 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx'; 'Mathieu Weill'; 'thomas@rickert.net'; ICANN-Adler; 'accountability-cross-community@icann.org'; Sidley ICANN CCWG; 'ccwg-accountability5@icann.org'; 'bylaws-coord@icann.org' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2
Hi,
On comment 2 in this comments-on-the-comment document, it says this:
Lawyers’ comment: What is the recommendation and what direction is the CCWG-Accountability providing to the legal drafters? In our May 7, 2016 comments on the draft CCWG-Accountability comment letter, we suggested a recommendation: “We request that the groups most directly involved with the documents addressed in subsections (B) through (E) weigh in on the need to include grandfathering language for those documents. Depending on such input, a final determination should be made as to whether those documents should be included in the grandfathering provision.”
I don't get what's obscure here. The CCWG's comment is that the mentioned subsections have no justification in the CCWG Proposal. There's precisely one thing to do in such a case: remove the subsection. It would be helpful, at least to me, to understand why the drafters do not understand this.
The time for substantive change to the Proposal is over. If the Proposal has deficiencies, we will have to cope with them later. The task is to implement the Proposal in bylaws language, and that's it. Anything not founded in either the Proposal or the facts of relevant law is not something that should appear in any changed bylaws text. The community consensus must be treated as fundamental, or all legitimacy of this process will be lost.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> **************************************************************************************************** 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 _____
That is my understanding, yes! Thomas Thomas Rickert Rechtsanwalt tel: +49.228.74 898.0 fax: +49.228.74 898.66 email: thomas@rickert.net web: rickert.net <https://rickert.net/> RICKERT Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) Kaiserplatz 7 - 9, 53113 Bonn, Germany HRB 9262, AG Bonn - GF/CEO: Thomas Rickert
Am 13.05.2016 um 08:37 schrieb Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>:
Hi all,
So, to be clear, what is requested here is to add the following sentence at the end of item 2.3 :
As a consequence, our group’s recommendation is to remove provisions B, C, D and E of Section 1.1 (d)(ii).
Is that correct ?
Best Mathieu
De : bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org>] De la part de Greg Shatan Envoyé : jeudi 12 mai 2016 21:28 À : Gregory, Holly Cc : ICANN-Adler; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Sidley ICANN CCWG; ccwg-accountability5@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>; bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>; Seun Ojedeji Objet : Re: [bylaws-coord] [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2
I think this reflects an issue in the drafting process for the comment, which resulted in several less-than-perfect translations of the CCWG's decisions into the draft comment. That's why we have an iterative process of review and comment, since we can't all be part of the process where the words are first being put on the "page" (screen). It would be a mistake to take the draft comment as gospel. This is not to impugn the efforts of those involved. We are all running hard and fast, and that means that you have to circle back and fix something a little more often than if you were in a relaxed work mode.
Greg
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> wrote: We reiterate: if the instruction is to remove the language then the recommendation should be to remove the language.
Sent with Good (www.good.com <http://www.good.com/>)
From: Seun Ojedeji Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 12:55:29 PM To: Andrew Sullivan Cc: Rosemary E. Fei; Thomas Rickert; ccwg-accountability5@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>; bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>; Sidley ICANN CCWG; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; ICANN-Adler
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2
+1 but it's certainly the Chair's call to communicate the needful to the legal team.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 12 May 2016 17:27, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote: Thanks. FWIW, I certainly think the text should say, "Remove this."
A
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:25:18PM +0000, Rosemary E. Fei wrote:
Dear All:
I have to second Holly's response here. I, too, read the recommendation in the CCWG's draft public comment, and wondered why it didn't just say "remove". If it had, we would not have asked for clarification. What we did not understand, and what was obscure to us, was why that was not the recommendation, given the content of the rest of the comment.
To be clear, we have no objection on legal grounds to removing the items of concern from grandfathering, as long as that is what the CCWG agrees should be done.
Rosemary
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 7:58 AM To: Holly Gregory Cc: 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>'; 'Mathieu Weill'; 'thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>'; ICANN-Adler; 'accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>'; Sidley ICANN CCWG; 'ccwg-accountability5@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>'; 'bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2
Hi,
On comment 2 in this comments-on-the-comment document, it says this:
Lawyers’ comment: What is the recommendation and what direction is the CCWG-Accountability providing to the legal drafters? In our May 7, 2016 comments on the draft CCWG-Accountability comment letter, we suggested a recommendation: “We request that the groups most directly involved with the documents addressed in subsections (B) through (E) weigh in on the need to include grandfathering language for those documents. Depending on such input, a final determination should be made as to whether those documents should be included in the grandfathering provision.”
I don't get what's obscure here. The CCWG's comment is that the mentioned subsections have no justification in the CCWG Proposal. There's precisely one thing to do in such a case: remove the subsection. It would be helpful, at least to me, to understand why the drafters do not understand this.
The time for substantive change to the Proposal is over. If the Proposal has deficiencies, we will have to cope with them later. The task is to implement the Proposal in bylaws language, and that's it. Anything not founded in either the Proposal or the facts of relevant law is not something that should appear in any changed bylaws text. The community consensus must be treated as fundamental, or all legitimacy of this process will be lost.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
-- 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
**************************************************************************************************** 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>
_______________________________________________ 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>
My understanding too Saludos, León
El may 13, 2016, a las 2:37 AM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> escribió:
That is my understanding, yes!
Thomas
Thomas Rickert Rechtsanwalt tel: +49.228.74 898.0 fax: +49.228.74 898.66 email: thomas@rickert.net web: rickert.net
RICKERT Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) Kaiserplatz 7 - 9, 53113 Bonn, Germany HRB 9262, AG Bonn - GF/CEO: Thomas Rickert
Am 13.05.2016 um 08:37 schrieb Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>:
Hi all,
So, to be clear, what is requested here is to add the following sentence at the end of item 2.3 :
As a consequence, our group’s recommendation is to remove provisions B, C, D and E of Section 1.1 (d)(ii).
Is that correct ?
Best Mathieu
De : bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org [mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Greg Shatan Envoyé : jeudi 12 mai 2016 21:28 À : Gregory, Holly Cc : ICANN-Adler; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Sidley ICANN CCWG; ccwg-accountability5@icann.org; bylaws-coord@icann.org; Seun Ojedeji Objet : Re: [bylaws-coord] [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2
I think this reflects an issue in the drafting process for the comment, which resulted in several less-than-perfect translations of the CCWG's decisions into the draft comment. That's why we have an iterative process of review and comment, since we can't all be part of the process where the words are first being put on the "page" (screen). It would be a mistake to take the draft comment as gospel. This is not to impugn the efforts of those involved. We are all running hard and fast, and that means that you have to circle back and fix something a little more often than if you were in a relaxed work mode.
Greg
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com> wrote: We reiterate: if the instruction is to remove the language then the recommendation should be to remove the language.
Sent with Good (www.good.com)
From: Seun Ojedeji Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 12:55:29 PM To: Andrew Sullivan Cc: Rosemary E. Fei; Thomas Rickert; ccwg-accountability5@icann.org; bylaws-coord@icann.org; Sidley ICANN CCWG; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; ICANN-Adler
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2
+1 but it's certainly the Chair's call to communicate the needful to the legal team.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 12 May 2016 17:27, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: Thanks. FWIW, I certainly think the text should say, "Remove this."
A
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:25:18PM +0000, Rosemary E. Fei wrote:
Dear All:
I have to second Holly's response here. I, too, read the recommendation in the CCWG's draft public comment, and wondered why it didn't just say "remove". If it had, we would not have asked for clarification. What we did not understand, and what was obscure to us, was why that was not the recommendation, given the content of the rest of the comment.
To be clear, we have no objection on legal grounds to removing the items of concern from grandfathering, as long as that is what the CCWG agrees should be done.
Rosemary
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 7:58 AM To: Holly Gregory Cc: 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx'; 'Mathieu Weill'; 'thomas@rickert.net'; ICANN-Adler; 'accountability-cross-community@icann.org'; Sidley ICANN CCWG; 'ccwg-accountability5@icann.org'; 'bylaws-coord@icann.org' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2
Hi,
On comment 2 in this comments-on-the-comment document, it says this:
Lawyers’ comment: What is the recommendation and what direction is the CCWG-Accountability providing to the legal drafters? In our May 7, 2016 comments on the draft CCWG-Accountability comment letter, we suggested a recommendation: “We request that the groups most directly involved with the documents addressed in subsections (B) through (E) weigh in on the need to include grandfathering language for those documents. Depending on such input, a final determination should be made as to whether those documents should be included in the grandfathering provision.”
I don't get what's obscure here. The CCWG's comment is that the mentioned subsections have no justification in the CCWG Proposal. There's precisely one thing to do in such a case: remove the subsection. It would be helpful, at least to me, to understand why the drafters do not understand this.
The time for substantive change to the Proposal is over. If the Proposal has deficiencies, we will have to cope with them later. The task is to implement the Proposal in bylaws language, and that's it. Anything not founded in either the Proposal or the facts of relevant law is not something that should appear in any changed bylaws text. The community consensus must be treated as fundamental, or all legitimacy of this process will be lost.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
**************************************************************************************************** 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ bylaws-coord mailing list bylaws-coord@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord
I agree jg From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Date: Friday 13 May 2016 at 13:01 To: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> Cc: ICANN-Adler <ICANN@adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, "ccwg-accountability5@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>" <ccwg-accountability5@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>>, "bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>" <bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [bylaws-coord] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2 My understanding too Saludos, León El may 13, 2016, a las 2:37 AM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> escribió: That is my understanding, yes! Thomas Thomas Rickert Rechtsanwalt tel: +49.228.74 898.0 fax: +49.228.74 898.66 email: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net> web: rickert.net<https://rickert.net/> [image] RICKERT Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) Kaiserplatz 7 - 9, 53113 Bonn, Germany HRB 9262, AG Bonn - GF/CEO: Thomas Rickert Am 13.05.2016 um 08:37 schrieb Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>: Hi all, So, to be clear, what is requested here is to add the following sentence at the end of item 2.3 : As a consequence, our group’s recommendation is to remove provisions B, C, D and E of Section 1.1 (d)(ii). Is that correct ? Best Mathieu De : bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Greg Shatan Envoyé : jeudi 12 mai 2016 21:28 À : Gregory, Holly Cc : ICANN-Adler; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Sidley ICANN CCWG; ccwg-accountability5@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>; bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>; Seun Ojedeji Objet : Re: [bylaws-coord] [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2 I think this reflects an issue in the drafting process for the comment, which resulted in several less-than-perfect translations of the CCWG's decisions into the draft comment. That's why we have an iterative process of review and comment, since we can't all be part of the process where the words are first being put on the "page" (screen). It would be a mistake to take the draft comment as gospel. This is not to impugn the efforts of those involved. We are all running hard and fast, and that means that you have to circle back and fix something a little more often than if you were in a relaxed work mode. Greg On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> wrote: We reiterate: if the instruction is to remove the language then the recommendation should be to remove the language. Sent with Good (www.good.com<http://www.good.com/>) ________________________________ From: Seun Ojedeji Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 12:55:29 PM To: Andrew Sullivan Cc: Rosemary E. Fei; Thomas Rickert; ccwg-accountability5@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>; bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>; Sidley ICANN CCWG; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; ICANN-Adler Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2 +1 but it's certainly the Chair's call to communicate the needful to the legal team. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 12 May 2016 17:27, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote: Thanks. FWIW, I certainly think the text should say, "Remove this." A On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:25:18PM +0000, Rosemary E. Fei wrote:
Dear All:
I have to second Holly's response here. I, too, read the recommendation in the CCWG's draft public comment, and wondered why it didn't just say "remove". If it had, we would not have asked for clarification. What we did not understand, and what was obscure to us, was why that was not the recommendation, given the content of the rest of the comment.
To be clear, we have no objection on legal grounds to removing the items of concern from grandfathering, as long as that is what the CCWG agrees should be done.
Rosemary
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 7:58 AM To: Holly Gregory Cc: 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>'; 'Mathieu Weill'; 'thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>'; ICANN-Adler; 'accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>'; Sidley ICANN CCWG; 'ccwg-accountability5@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>'; 'bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2
Hi,
On comment 2 in this comments-on-the-comment document, it says this:
Lawyers’ comment: What is the recommendation and what direction is the CCWG-Accountability providing to the legal drafters? In our May 7, 2016 comments on the draft CCWG-Accountability comment letter, we suggested a recommendation: “We request that the groups most directly involved with the documents addressed in subsections (B) through (E) weigh in on the need to include grandfathering language for those documents. Depending on such input, a final determination should be made as to whether those documents should be included in the grandfathering provision.”
I don't get what's obscure here. The CCWG's comment is that the mentioned subsections have no justification in the CCWG Proposal. There's precisely one thing to do in such a case: remove the subsection. It would be helpful, at least to me, to understand why the drafters do not understand this.
The time for substantive change to the Proposal is over. If the Proposal has deficiencies, we will have to cope with them later. The task is to implement the Proposal in bylaws language, and that's it. Anything not founded in either the Proposal or the facts of relevant law is not something that should appear in any changed bylaws text. The community consensus must be treated as fundamental, or all legitimacy of this process will be lost.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
-- 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=qsVVNEijGn5VaSFaMoL5f0pKfzUx8abcOUMCW3IEwuU&s=zj8D6f4Ukj094yM3OECPlWe5yu_75aj3WArq7NCf8BE&e=> **************************************************************************************************** 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 ________________________________ _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ bylaws-coord mailing list bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord
+ 1 On 5/13/2016 1:04 PM, James Gannon wrote:
I agree
jg
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Date: Friday 13 May 2016 at 13:01 To: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> Cc: ICANN-Adler <ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, "ccwg-accountability5@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>" <ccwg-accountability5@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>>, "bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>" <bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [bylaws-coord] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2
My understanding too
Saludos,
León
El may 13, 2016, a las 2:37 AM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> escribió:
That is my understanding, yes!
Thomas
Thomas Rickert Rechtsanwalt tel:+49.228.74 898.0 fax:+49.228.74 898.66 email:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> web:rickert.net <https://rickert.net/>
image
RICKERT Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) Kaiserplatz 7 - 9, 53113 Bonn, Germany HRB 9262, AG Bonn - GF/CEO: Thomas Rickert
Am 13.05.2016 um 08:37 schrieb Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>:
Hi all, So, to be clear, what is requested here is to add the following sentence at the end of item 2.3 : As a consequence, our group’s recommendation is to remove provisions B, C, D and E of Section 1.1 (d)(ii). Is that correct ? Best Mathieu ** ** ** ** *De :*bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org]*De la part de*Greg Shatan *Envoyé :*jeudi 12 mai 2016 21:28 *À :*Gregory, Holly *Cc :*ICANN-Adler;accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Sidley ICANN CCWG;ccwg-accountability5@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>;bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>; Seun Ojedeji *Objet :*Re: [bylaws-coord] [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2 I think this reflects an issue in the drafting process for the comment, which resulted in several less-than-perfect translations of the CCWG's decisions into the draft comment. That's why we have an iterative process of review and comment, since we can't all be part of the process where the words are first being put on the "page" (screen). It would be a mistake to take the draft comment as gospel. This is not to impugn the efforts of those involved. We are all running hard and fast, and that means that you have to circle back and fix something a little more often than if you were in a relaxed work mode. Greg On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> wrote:
We reiterate: if the instruction is to remove the language then the recommendation should be to remove the language.
Sent with Good (www.good.com <http://www.good.com/>)
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:*Seun Ojedeji *Sent:*Thursday, May 12, 2016 12:55:29 PM *To:*Andrew Sullivan *Cc:*Rosemary E. Fei; Thomas Rickert;ccwg-accountability5@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>;bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>; Sidley ICANN CCWG;accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; ICANN-Adler
*Subject:*Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2
+1 but it's certainly the Chair's call to communicate the needful to the legal team.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 12 May 2016 17:27, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote: Thanks. FWIW, I certainly think the text should say, "Remove this."
A
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:25:18PM +0000, Rosemary E. Fei wrote:
Dear All:
I have to second Holly's response here. I, too, read the recommendation in the CCWG's draft public comment, and wondered why it didn't just say "remove". If it had, we would not have asked for clarification. What we did not understand, and what was obscure to us, was why that was not the recommendation, given the content of the rest of the comment.
To be clear, we have no objection on legal grounds to removing the items of concern from grandfathering, as long as that is what the CCWG agrees should be done.
Rosemary
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 7:58 AM To: Holly Gregory Cc: 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>'; 'Mathieu Weill'; 'thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>'; ICANN-Adler; 'accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>'; Sidley ICANN CCWG; 'ccwg-accountability5@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>'; 'bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2
Hi,
On comment 2 in this comments-on-the-comment document, it says this:
Lawyers’ comment: What is the recommendation and what direction is the CCWG-Accountability providing to the legal drafters? In our May 7, 2016 comments on the draft CCWG-Accountability comment letter, we suggested a recommendation: “We request that the groups most directly involved with the documents addressed in subsections (B) through (E) weigh in on the need to include grandfathering language for those documents. Depending on such input, a final determination should be made as to whether those documents should be included in the grandfathering provision.”
I don't get what's obscure here. The CCWG's comment is that the mentioned subsections have no justification in the CCWG Proposal. There's precisely one thing to do in such a case: remove the subsection. It would be helpful, at least to me, to understand why the drafters do not understand this.
The time for substantive change to the Proposal is over. If the Proposal has deficiencies, we will have to cope with them later. The task is to implement the Proposal in bylaws language, and that's it. Anything not founded in either the Proposal or the facts of relevant law is not something that should appear in any changed bylaws text. The community consensus must be treated as fundamental, or all legitimacy of this process will be lost.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
-- 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
**************************************************************************************************** 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ bylaws-coord mailing list bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord
_______________________________________________ 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 & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
Right! Cheers! On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Hi all,
So, to be clear, what is requested here is to add the following sentence at the end of item 2.3 :
As a consequence, our group’s recommendation is to remove provisions B, C, D and E of Section 1.1 (d)(ii).
Is that correct ?
Best
Mathieu
*De :* bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org [mailto: bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org] *De la part de* Greg Shatan *Envoyé :* jeudi 12 mai 2016 21:28 *À :* Gregory, Holly *Cc :* ICANN-Adler; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Sidley ICANN CCWG; ccwg-accountability5@icann.org; bylaws-coord@icann.org; Seun Ojedeji *Objet :* Re: [bylaws-coord] [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2
I think this reflects an issue in the drafting process for the comment, which resulted in several less-than-perfect translations of the CCWG's decisions into the draft comment. That's why we have an iterative process of review and comment, since we can't all be part of the process where the words are first being put on the "page" (screen). It would be a mistake to take the draft comment as gospel. This is not to impugn the efforts of those involved. We are all running hard and fast, and that means that you have to circle back and fix something a little more often than if you were in a relaxed work mode.
Greg
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com> wrote:
We reiterate: if the instruction is to remove the language then the recommendation should be to remove the language.
Sent with Good (www.good.com)
------------------------------
*From:* Seun Ojedeji *Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2016 12:55:29 PM *To:* Andrew Sullivan *Cc:* Rosemary E. Fei; Thomas Rickert; ccwg-accountability5@icann.org; bylaws-coord@icann.org; Sidley ICANN CCWG; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; ICANN-Adler
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2
+1 but it's certainly the Chair's call to communicate the needful to the legal team.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 12 May 2016 17:27, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Thanks. FWIW, I certainly think the text should say, "Remove this."
A
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:25:18PM +0000, Rosemary E. Fei wrote:
Dear All:
I have to second Holly's response here. I, too, read the recommendation in the CCWG's draft public comment, and wondered why it didn't just say "remove". If it had, we would not have asked for clarification. What we did not understand, and what was obscure to us, was why that was not the recommendation, given the content of the rest of the comment.
To be clear, we have no objection on legal grounds to removing the items of concern from grandfathering, as long as that is what the CCWG agrees should be done.
Rosemary
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 7:58 AM To: Holly Gregory Cc: 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx'; 'Mathieu Weill'; 'thomas@rickert.net'; ICANN-Adler; 'accountability-cross-community@icann.org'; Sidley ICANN CCWG; 'ccwg-accountability5@icann.org'; 'bylaws-coord@icann.org' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment - Version 2
Hi,
On comment 2 in this comments-on-the-comment document, it says this:
Lawyers’ comment: What is the recommendation and what direction is the CCWG-Accountability providing to the legal drafters? In our May 7, 2016 comments on the draft CCWG-Accountability comment letter, we suggested a recommendation: “We request that the groups most directly involved with the documents addressed in subsections (B) through (E) weigh in on the need to include grandfathering language for those documents. Depending on such input, a final determination should be made as to whether those documents should be included in the grandfathering provision.”
I don't get what's obscure here. The CCWG's comment is that the mentioned subsections have no justification in the CCWG Proposal. There's precisely one thing to do in such a case: remove the subsection. It would be helpful, at least to me, to understand why the drafters do not understand this.
The time for substantive change to the Proposal is over. If the Proposal has deficiencies, we will have to cope with them later. The task is to implement the Proposal in bylaws language, and that's it. Anything not founded in either the Proposal or the facts of relevant law is not something that should appear in any changed bylaws text. The community consensus must be treated as fundamental, or all legitimacy of this process will be lost.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
**************************************************************************************************** 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
------------------------------
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Fair enough, if it's not too late to update the CCWG comment to the PC then I suggest the recommendation update be done to reflect the needful. Otherwise, we could just leave as it is and rely on comments that has already been made by other organisations (like the IAB) to do the fix. I prefer the former. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 12 May 2016 19:02, "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory@sidley.com> wrote: > We reiterate: if the instruction is to remove the language then the > recommendation should be to remove the language. > > > > Sent with Good (www.good.com) > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Seun Ojedeji > *Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2016 12:55:29 PM > *To:* Andrew Sullivan > *Cc:* Rosemary E. Fei; Thomas Rickert; ccwg-accountability5@icann.org; > bylaws-coord@icann.org; Sidley ICANN CCWG; > accountability-cross-community@icann.org; ICANN-Adler > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment > - Version 2 > > +1 but it's certainly the Chair's call to communicate the needful to the > legal team. > > Regards > > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > On 12 May 2016 17:27, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: > >> Thanks. FWIW, I certainly think the text should say, "Remove this." >> >> A >> >> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:25:18PM +0000, Rosemary E. Fei wrote: >> > Dear All: >> > >> > I have to second Holly's response here. I, too, read the >> recommendation in the CCWG's draft public comment, and wondered why it >> didn't just say "remove". If it had, we would not have asked for >> clarification. What we did not understand, and what was obscure to us, was >> why that was not the recommendation, given the content of the rest of the >> comment. >> > >> > To be clear, we have no objection on legal grounds to removing the >> items of concern from grandfathering, as long as that is what the CCWG >> agrees should be done. >> > >> > Rosemary >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] >> > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 7:58 AM >> > To: Holly Gregory >> > Cc: 'leonfelipe@sanchez.mx'; 'Mathieu Weill'; 'thomas@rickert.net'; >> ICANN-Adler; 'accountability-cross-community@icann.org'; Sidley ICANN >> CCWG; 'ccwg-accountability5@icann.org'; 'bylaws-coord@icann.org' >> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers Comments and Concerns re CCWG Comment >> - Version 2 >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > On comment 2 in this comments-on-the-comment document, it says this: >> > >> > Lawyers’ comment: What is the recommendation and what direction is >> > the CCWG-Accountability providing to the legal drafters? In our >> > May 7, 2016 comments on the draft CCWG-Accountability comment >> > letter, we suggested a recommendation: “We request that the groups >> > most directly involved with the documents addressed in subsections >> > (B) through (E) weigh in on the need to include grandfathering >> > language for those documents. Depending on such input, a final >> > determination should be made as to whether those documents should >> > be included in the grandfathering provision.” >> > >> > I don't get what's obscure here. The CCWG's comment is that the >> mentioned subsections have no justification in the CCWG Proposal. >> > There's precisely one thing to do in such a case: remove the >> subsection. It would be helpful, at least to me, to understand why the >> drafters do not understand this. >> > >> > The time for substantive change to the Proposal is over. If the >> Proposal has deficiencies, we will have to cope with them later. The task >> is to implement the Proposal in bylaws language, and that's it. >> > Anything not founded in either the Proposal or the facts of relevant >> law is not something that should appear in any changed bylaws text. >> > The community consensus must be treated as fundamental, or all >> legitimacy of this process will be lost. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > >> > A >> > >> > -- >> > Andrew Sullivan >> > ajs@anvilwalrusden.com >> > >> >> -- >> Andrew Sullivan >> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=qsVVNEijGn5VaSFaMoL5f0pKfzUx8abcOUMCW3IEwuU&s=zj8D6f4Ukj094yM3OECPlWe5yu_75aj3WArq7NCf8BE&e=> >> > > > > **************************************************************************************************** > 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. > > > **************************************************************************************************** >
Many thanks Gregory, Best Regards On 4/21/16, Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com> wrote:
CCWG Accountability
April 20, 2016
Dear CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, Members, Participants and Staff,
We have reviewed the Proposed Draft ICANN Bylaws, dated April 20, 2016 (“Proposed Draft Bylaws”), a copy of which is attached. We believe that the Proposed Draft Bylaws are consistent with the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (“CCWG-Accountability”) Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations (23 February 2016) relating to the IANA Stewardship Transition. Accordingly, we recommend that the Proposed Draft Bylaws be posted to the community for review.
Kind regards,
Holly J. Gregory and Rosemary E. Fei Sidley Austin LLP and Adler & Colvin
CWG-Stewardship
April 20, 2016
Dear CWG Co-Chairs, Members, Participants and Staff,
We have reviewed the Proposed Draft ICANN Bylaws, dated April 20, 2016 (“Proposed Draft Bylaws”), a copy of which is attached. We believe that the Proposed Draft Bylaws are consistent with the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (“CWG-Stewardship”) Final Proposal (11 June 2015) relating to the IANA Stewardship Transition. Accordingly, we recommend that the Proposed Draft Bylaws be posted to the community for review.
Kind regards,
Holly J. Gregory and Sharon R. Flanagan Sidley Austin LLP
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/> [SIDLEY]
**************************************************************************************************** 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.
****************************************************************************************************
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno
participants (15)
-
'Andrew Sullivan' -
Andrew Sullivan
-
avri doria -
Barrack Otieno -
Drazek, Keith -
Greg Shatan -
Gregory, Holly -
James Gannon -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Mathieu Weill -
Matthew Shears -
Rosemary E. Fei -
Schaefer, Brett -
Seun Ojedeji -
Thomas Rickert