Fwd: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version
Dear colleagues, In anticipation of our calls this week, please find below a note from the lawyers group, the draft bylaws as well as an issue list. It is important to read the lawyers notes as they quite efficiently describe the context and status of the work. Please review them for any process related question. The purpose of our calls this week will be to address the issue list questions (questions 1-7 & 25-34 are for the CCWG, the others for CWG). Should any other issue be added to the list based on your respective reviews, please raise your questions on the list for transparency. Best regards, Mathieu --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style Début du message transféré :
Expéditeur: John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord <bylaws-coord@icann.org> Date: 3 avril 2016 13:16:28 UTC+2 Destinataire: bylaws-coord@icann.org Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan@sidley.com>, "Cc: Zagorin, Janet S." <jzagorin@sidley.com>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton@sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN@adlercolvin.com>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer@sidley.com>, "Mohan, Vivek" <vivek.mohan@sidley.com>, "Clark, Michael A." <mclark@sidley.com>, "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher@sidley.com>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>, "Kerry, Cameron" <ckerry@sidley.com>, "McNicholas, Edward R." <emcnicholas@sidley.com>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran@icann.org>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos@icann.org>, "Boelter, Jessica C.K." <jboelter@sidley.com>, "Fuller, Miles" <wfuller@sidley.com>, "Tam, Tennie H." <tennie.tam@sidley.com> Objet: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version Répondre à: John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey@icann.org> Dear Bylaws Coordination Group,
Please find attached a document – DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr) (“DRAFT BYLAWS”) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the last full draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to provide another full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2 April. The DRAFT BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the legal drafting group. There is also an Issue List attached, which are a set of additional questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws Coordination Group.
We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week
Recent Work – During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made up of Sidley’s team, Adler’s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and worked through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN Bylaws. Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws Coordination Group during this two-week period asking questions and incorporating that feedback into the new draft. There is likely to be the need for some additional discussions as we work toward a public comment version of the new ICANN bylaws.
More Work to Do – There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions, and polishing the draft before publication for public comment. The legal teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and comments during this period.
Legal Teams have not yet “certified” – Since a) the Bylaws Coordination Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these DRAFT BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is still review and polishing to be done by the legal teams – the legal teams have not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the recommendations within the Proposals.
As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version for Public Comment
Next Steps –
1) Now until 13 April – members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide feedback to legal teams;
2) Now until 18 April, (with particular focus during week of 13-18 April) – legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with the Bylaws Drafting Group;
3) 20 April – posting date for public comment period for new proposed bylaws – with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets the proposal recommendations.
———
As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days, to get ICANN’s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these important changes.
We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them in the spirit that they are offered… to help all of us to be able to collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way possible — to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community empowered ICANN.
John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei
_____________________ ____________________
_______________________________________________ bylaws-coord mailing list bylaws-coord@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord
Thanks Mathieu. On 3 Apr 2016 3:17 pm, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
In anticipation of our calls this week, please find below a note from the lawyers group, the draft bylaws as well as an issue list.
It is important to read the lawyers notes as they quite efficiently describe the context and status of the work. Please review them for any process related question.
The purpose of our calls this week will be to address the issue list questions (questions 1-7 & 25-34 are for the CCWG, the others for CWG).
Should any other issue be added to the list based on your respective reviews, please raise your questions on the list for transparency.
Best regards,
Mathieu --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style
Début du message transféré :
*Expéditeur:* John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord <bylaws-coord@icann.org> *Date:* 3 avril 2016 13:16:28 UTC+2 *Destinataire:* bylaws-coord@icann.org *Cc:* "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan@sidley.com>, "Cc: Zagorin, Janet S." < jzagorin@sidley.com>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton@sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler < ICANN@adlercolvin.com>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer@sidley.com>, "Mohan, Vivek" <vivek.mohan@sidley.com>, "Clark, Michael A." < mclark@sidley.com>, "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher@sidley.com>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>, "Kerry, Cameron" <ckerry@sidley.com>, "McNicholas, Edward R." <emcnicholas@sidley.com>, Daniel Halloran < daniel.halloran@icann.org>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos@icann.org>, "Boelter, Jessica C.K." <jboelter@sidley.com>, "Fuller, Miles" < wfuller@sidley.com>, "Tam, Tennie H." <tennie.tam@sidley.com> *Objet:* *[bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version* *Répondre à:* John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey@icann.org>
Dear Bylaws Coordination Group,
Please find attached a document – DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr) (“DRAFT BYLAWS”) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the last full draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to provide another full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2 April. The DRAFT BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the legal drafting group. There is also an Issue List attached, which are a set of additional questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws Coordination Group.
We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week
*Recent Work* – During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made up of Sidley’s team, Adler’s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and worked through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN Bylaws. Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws Coordination Group during this two-week period asking questions and incorporating that feedback into the new draft. There is likely to be the need for some additional discussions as we work toward a public comment version of the new ICANN bylaws.
*More Work to Do* – There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions, and polishing the draft before publication for public comment. The legal teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and comments during this period.
*Legal Teams have not yet “certified”* – Since a) the Bylaws Coordination Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these DRAFT BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is still review and polishing to be done by the legal teams – the legal teams have not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the recommendations within the Proposals.
As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version for Public Comment
*Next Steps* –
1) *Now until 13 April* – members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide feedback to legal teams;
2) *Now until 18 April*, (with particular focus during week of 13-18 April) – legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with the Bylaws Drafting Group;
3) *20 April* – posting date for public comment period for new proposed bylaws – with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets the proposal recommendations.
———
As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days, to get ICANN’s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these important changes.
We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them in the spirit that they are offered… to help all of us to be able to collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way possible — to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community empowered ICANN.
John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei
_____________________ ____________________
_______________________________________________ bylaws-coord mailing list 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
Thanks for sharing this Mathieu, considering the signatories in the footer it implies that the draft document shared was prepared in conjunction with ICANN legal. It's really important approach and hopefully will save us lots of time at this stage. On another note, I will also like to add my voice (as tiny as it may be) to request a side by side comparison of current vs proposed bylaw changes. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 Apr 2016 13:17, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
In anticipation of our calls this week, please find below a note from the lawyers group, the draft bylaws as well as an issue list.
It is important to read the lawyers notes as they quite efficiently describe the context and status of the work. Please review them for any process related question.
The purpose of our calls this week will be to address the issue list questions (questions 1-7 & 25-34 are for the CCWG, the others for CWG).
Should any other issue be added to the list based on your respective reviews, please raise your questions on the list for transparency.
Best regards,
Mathieu --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style
Début du message transféré :
*Expéditeur:* John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord <bylaws-coord@icann.org> *Date:* 3 avril 2016 13:16:28 UTC+2 *Destinataire:* bylaws-coord@icann.org *Cc:* "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan@sidley.com>, "Cc: Zagorin, Janet S." < jzagorin@sidley.com>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton@sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler < ICANN@adlercolvin.com>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer@sidley.com>, "Mohan, Vivek" <vivek.mohan@sidley.com>, "Clark, Michael A." < mclark@sidley.com>, "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher@sidley.com>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>, "Kerry, Cameron" <ckerry@sidley.com>, "McNicholas, Edward R." <emcnicholas@sidley.com>, Daniel Halloran < daniel.halloran@icann.org>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos@icann.org>, "Boelter, Jessica C.K." <jboelter@sidley.com>, "Fuller, Miles" < wfuller@sidley.com>, "Tam, Tennie H." <tennie.tam@sidley.com> *Objet:* *[bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version* *Répondre à:* John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey@icann.org>
Dear Bylaws Coordination Group,
Please find attached a document – DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr) (“DRAFT BYLAWS”) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the last full draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to provide another full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2 April. The DRAFT BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the legal drafting group. There is also an Issue List attached, which are a set of additional questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws Coordination Group.
We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week
*Recent Work* – During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made up of Sidley’s team, Adler’s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and worked through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN Bylaws. Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws Coordination Group during this two-week period asking questions and incorporating that feedback into the new draft. There is likely to be the need for some additional discussions as we work toward a public comment version of the new ICANN bylaws.
*More Work to Do* – There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions, and polishing the draft before publication for public comment. The legal teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and comments during this period.
*Legal Teams have not yet “certified”* – Since a) the Bylaws Coordination Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these DRAFT BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is still review and polishing to be done by the legal teams – the legal teams have not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the recommendations within the Proposals.
As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version for Public Comment
*Next Steps* –
1) *Now until 13 April* – members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide feedback to legal teams;
2) *Now until 18 April*, (with particular focus during week of 13-18 April) – legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with the Bylaws Drafting Group;
3) *20 April* – posting date for public comment period for new proposed bylaws – with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets the proposal recommendations.
———
As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days, to get ICANN’s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these important changes.
We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them in the spirit that they are offered… to help all of us to be able to collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way possible — to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community empowered ICANN.
John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei
_____________________ ____________________
_______________________________________________ bylaws-coord mailing list 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
Dear Co-Chairs, I have had a second read on the legal team statement and like to raise a process issue here: <Quote> the legal teams have not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the recommendations within the Proposals <End quote> I believe the essence of encouraging a combination of CCWG legal and ICANN legal is to ensure that the spirit/intent of proposal is adequately covered in that the CCWG legal ensures the bylaw reflects the intent of the proposal while ICANN legal ensures that the draft bylaw DID not exceed the scope that has been defined by the proposal approved by the ICANN board for onward forwarding to NTIA. I don't think it's all helpful to be reviewing a document that has not be agreed to by the DUO to accurately reflect the intent of the proposal(s). The idea is that if such action has happened prior to the CCWG/CWG looking at the draft then there will be less possibility of missing critical parts of the document. In view of this, I will strongly suggest at least 1 week between the certification by legal team and publication for public comments. Based on the timeline indicated, this will mean that publication for PC will happen 27th at the earliest. This is to ensure that the CCWG and CWG looks into the certified copy before publishing for PC. (Infact that has usually been the approach during the proposal development as the CCWG always have time for review before publishing) Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 Apr 2016 15:45, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for sharing this Mathieu, considering the signatories in the footer it implies that the draft document shared was prepared in conjunction with ICANN legal. It's really important approach and hopefully will save us lots of time at this stage.
On another note, I will also like to add my voice (as tiny as it may be) to request a side by side comparison of current vs proposed bylaw changes.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 Apr 2016 13:17, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
In anticipation of our calls this week, please find below a note from the lawyers group, the draft bylaws as well as an issue list.
It is important to read the lawyers notes as they quite efficiently describe the context and status of the work. Please review them for any process related question.
The purpose of our calls this week will be to address the issue list questions (questions 1-7 & 25-34 are for the CCWG, the others for CWG).
Should any other issue be added to the list based on your respective reviews, please raise your questions on the list for transparency.
Best regards,
Mathieu --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style
Début du message transféré :
*Expéditeur:* John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord <bylaws-coord@icann.org> *Date:* 3 avril 2016 13:16:28 UTC+2 *Destinataire:* bylaws-coord@icann.org *Cc:* "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan@sidley.com>, "Cc: Zagorin, Janet S." <jzagorin@sidley.com>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton@sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN@adlercolvin.com>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer@sidley.com>, "Mohan, Vivek" <vivek.mohan@sidley.com>, "Clark, Michael A." < mclark@sidley.com>, "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher@sidley.com>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>, "Kerry, Cameron" <ckerry@sidley.com>, "McNicholas, Edward R." <emcnicholas@sidley.com>, Daniel Halloran < daniel.halloran@icann.org>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos@icann.org>, "Boelter, Jessica C.K." <jboelter@sidley.com>, "Fuller, Miles" < wfuller@sidley.com>, "Tam, Tennie H." <tennie.tam@sidley.com> *Objet:* *[bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version* *Répondre à:* John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey@icann.org>
Dear Bylaws Coordination Group,
Please find attached a document – DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr) (“DRAFT BYLAWS”) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the last full draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to provide another full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2 April. The DRAFT BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the legal drafting group. There is also an Issue List attached, which are a set of additional questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws Coordination Group.
We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week
*Recent Work* – During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made up of Sidley’s team, Adler’s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and worked through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN Bylaws. Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws Coordination Group during this two-week period asking questions and incorporating that feedback into the new draft. There is likely to be the need for some additional discussions as we work toward a public comment version of the new ICANN bylaws.
*More Work to Do* – There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions, and polishing the draft before publication for public comment. The legal teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and comments during this period.
*Legal Teams have not yet “certified”* – Since a) the Bylaws Coordination Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these DRAFT BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is still review and polishing to be done by the legal teams – the legal teams have not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the recommendations within the Proposals.
As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version for Public Comment
*Next Steps* –
1) *Now until 13 April* – members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide feedback to legal teams;
2) *Now until 18 April*, (with particular focus during week of 13-18 April) – legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with the Bylaws Drafting Group;
3) *20 April* – posting date for public comment period for new proposed bylaws – with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets the proposal recommendations.
———
As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days, to get ICANN’s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these important changes.
We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them in the spirit that they are offered… to help all of us to be able to collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way possible — to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community empowered ICANN.
John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei
_____________________ ____________________
_______________________________________________ bylaws-coord mailing list 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
Well, Seun, maybe they are asking us for our opinion as to whether the draft meets the recommendations and if not, what needs to change. (Or am I too optimistic about the process?) I don't think it's all helpful to be reviewing a document that has not be agreed to by the DUO to accurately reflect the intent of the proposal(s). The idea is that if such action has happened prior to the CCWG/CWG looking at the draft then there will be less possibility of missing critical parts of the document.
Hello Milton, What they are asking is fine, but it should be that they confirm/believe it's consistent with the recommendations (to the best of their knowledge). The statement by the legal team did not confirm that. It instead implies that such confirmation will come on the publication day which IMO is not what has been done in the past. I am not underestimating the capacity of the "volunteer" CCWG but i am not so certain we could review all these effectively, but if what is provided to us is a document that has been agreed to by the DUO then there is the likelihood that we may only be seeing some few inconsistencies and way be missing just a few if any at all. While this current process can continue (even though I would have preferred to avoid this back and forth), I am of the opinion that it will be good to have a review period after legal confirm draft before publishing for PC. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 Apr 2016 22:35, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
Well, Seun, maybe they are asking us for our opinion as to whether the draft meets the recommendations and if not, what needs to change. (Or am I too optimistic about the process?)
I don't think it's all helpful to be reviewing a document that has not be agreed to by the DUO to accurately reflect the intent of the proposal(s). The idea is that if such action has happened prior to the CCWG/CWG looking at the draft then there will be less possibility of missing critical parts of the document.
Hi all I see a straightforward choice. Either we could wait to share the documents with the full group until that certification is available, leaving less review time, or we could run the processes in parallel - CCWG review/input and finalisation. I'm strongly supportive of the second approach. It gives all of us more time to digest the very large document, to understand it and to ensure our feedback is absorbed and taken into account. As always, in a perfect world, we could have waited and done these things one after another. And as always, the world is not perfect. Speak with you all soon! cheers Jordan On 4 April 2016 at 09:55, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Milton,
What they are asking is fine, but it should be that they confirm/believe it's consistent with the recommendations (to the best of their knowledge). The statement by the legal team did not confirm that. It instead implies that such confirmation will come on the publication day which IMO is not what has been done in the past.
I am not underestimating the capacity of the "volunteer" CCWG but i am not so certain we could review all these effectively, but if what is provided to us is a document that has been agreed to by the DUO then there is the likelihood that we may only be seeing some few inconsistencies and way be missing just a few if any at all. While this current process can continue (even though I would have preferred to avoid this back and forth), I am of the opinion that it will be good to have a review period after legal confirm draft before publishing for PC.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 Apr 2016 22:35, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
Well, Seun, maybe they are asking us for our opinion as to whether the draft meets the recommendations and if not, what needs to change. (Or am I too optimistic about the process?)
I don't think it's all helpful to be reviewing a document that has not be agreed to by the DUO to accurately reflect the intent of the proposal(s). The idea is that if such action has happened prior to the CCWG/CWG looking at the draft then there will be less possibility of missing critical parts of the document.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ * +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) | Skype: jordancarter jordan@internetnz.net.nz | www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet*
Maybe i have not been quite clear enough, I am supportive of the second approach as well (Infact I'd suggest during the planning that the larger group be provided update as the development of the document continues just for the same purpose mentioned by Jordan). However, the update that we receive from the team should always be that which has been agreed to by both sides of the legal team (i.e the ICANN legal and CCWG legal[1]) to be consistent with the proposal. Since that does not seem to be the case with the document recently released, then I think there should be some review time window provided between when the legal team certifies a final draft document and publication for PC. I will leave it at that and not try to further explain myself on this point again (so as not to increase the thread unnecessarily). Regards 1. What was agreed during the planning was that CCWG legal gets the first shot at drafting, ICANN legal reviews and comments when necessary and it is an update of that document(including any possible disagreement points) that gets forwarded to the larger group. Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 4 Apr 2016 00:15, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all I see a straightforward choice. Either we could wait to share the documents with the full group until that certification is available, leaving less review time, or we could run the processes in parallel - CCWG review/input and finalisation.
I'm strongly supportive of the second approach. It gives all of us more time to digest the very large document, to understand it and to ensure our feedback is absorbed and taken into account.
As always, in a perfect world, we could have waited and done these things one after another. And as always, the world is not perfect.
Speak with you all soon!
cheers Jordan
On 4 April 2016 at 09:55, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Milton,
What they are asking is fine, but it should be that they confirm/believe it's consistent with the recommendations (to the best of their knowledge). The statement by the legal team did not confirm that. It instead implies that such confirmation will come on the publication day which IMO is not what has been done in the past.
I am not underestimating the capacity of the "volunteer" CCWG but i am not so certain we could review all these effectively, but if what is provided to us is a document that has been agreed to by the DUO then there is the likelihood that we may only be seeing some few inconsistencies and way be missing just a few if any at all. While this current process can continue (even though I would have preferred to avoid this back and forth), I am of the opinion that it will be good to have a review period after legal confirm draft before publishing for PC.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 Apr 2016 22:35, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
Well, Seun, maybe they are asking us for our opinion as to whether the draft meets the recommendations and if not, what needs to change. (Or am I too optimistic about the process?)
I don't think it's all helpful to be reviewing a document that has not be agreed to by the DUO to accurately reflect the intent of the proposal(s). The idea is that if such action has happened prior to the CCWG/CWG looking at the draft then there will be less possibility of missing critical parts of the document.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ *
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) | Skype: jordancarter jordan@internetnz.net.nz | www.internetnz.nz
*A better world through a better Internet*
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Seun raises valid points which should be considered, that said i am also in agreement with Jordan's sentiments. Regards On 4/4/16, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe i have not been quite clear enough, I am supportive of the second approach as well (Infact I'd suggest during the planning that the larger group be provided update as the development of the document continues just for the same purpose mentioned by Jordan).
However, the update that we receive from the team should always be that which has been agreed to by both sides of the legal team (i.e the ICANN legal and CCWG legal[1]) to be consistent with the proposal. Since that does not seem to be the case with the document recently released, then I think there should be some review time window provided between when the legal team certifies a final draft document and publication for PC.
I will leave it at that and not try to further explain myself on this point again (so as not to increase the thread unnecessarily).
Regards 1. What was agreed during the planning was that CCWG legal gets the first shot at drafting, ICANN legal reviews and comments when necessary and it is an update of that document(including any possible disagreement points) that gets forwarded to the larger group. Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 4 Apr 2016 00:15, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all I see a straightforward choice. Either we could wait to share the documents with the full group until that certification is available, leaving less review time, or we could run the processes in parallel - CCWG review/input and finalisation.
I'm strongly supportive of the second approach. It gives all of us more time to digest the very large document, to understand it and to ensure our feedback is absorbed and taken into account.
As always, in a perfect world, we could have waited and done these things one after another. And as always, the world is not perfect.
Speak with you all soon!
cheers Jordan
On 4 April 2016 at 09:55, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Milton,
What they are asking is fine, but it should be that they confirm/believe it's consistent with the recommendations (to the best of their knowledge). The statement by the legal team did not confirm that. It instead implies that such confirmation will come on the publication day which IMO is not what has been done in the past.
I am not underestimating the capacity of the "volunteer" CCWG but i am not so certain we could review all these effectively, but if what is provided to us is a document that has been agreed to by the DUO then there is the likelihood that we may only be seeing some few inconsistencies and way be missing just a few if any at all. While this current process can continue (even though I would have preferred to avoid this back and forth), I am of the opinion that it will be good to have a review period after legal confirm draft before publishing for PC.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 Apr 2016 22:35, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
Well, Seun, maybe they are asking us for our opinion as to whether the draft meets the recommendations and if not, what needs to change. (Or am I too optimistic about the process?)
I don't think it's all helpful to be reviewing a document that has not be agreed to by the DUO to accurately reflect the intent of the proposal(s). The idea is that if such action has happened prior to the CCWG/CWG looking at the draft then there will be less possibility of missing critical parts of the document.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ *
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) | Skype: jordancarter jordan@internetnz.net.nz | www.internetnz.nz
*A better world through a better Internet*
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno
Seun, You seem to imply that the document we have circulated was not agreed on by all lawyers team, or that there would be disagreements. I believe this is based on an interpretation of the lawyer’s note, but I have absolutely no indication that this is the case. My understanding is that our legal team, due to the heavy drafting workload they have been involved in (including a lot of “holding the pen”), has not yet had time to get back to the report and review item by item that everything was ok. The “testing” has not yet occurred if you will. We can certainly clarify that with our legal team. Meanwhile, we are in agreement about the 2nd approach. Best Mathieu De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Seun Ojedeji Envoyé : lundi 4 avril 2016 05:54 À : Jordan Carter Cc : Accountability Cross Community Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version Maybe i have not been quite clear enough, I am supportive of the second approach as well (Infact I'd suggest during the planning that the larger group be provided update as the development of the document continues just for the same purpose mentioned by Jordan). However, the update that we receive from the team should always be that which has been agreed to by both sides of the legal team (i.e the ICANN legal and CCWG legal[1]) to be consistent with the proposal. Since that does not seem to be the case with the document recently released, then I think there should be some review time window provided between when the legal team certifies a final draft document and publication for PC. I will leave it at that and not try to further explain myself on this point again (so as not to increase the thread unnecessarily). Regards 1. What was agreed during the planning was that CCWG legal gets the first shot at drafting, ICANN legal reviews and comments when necessary and it is an update of that document(including any possible disagreement points) that gets forwarded to the larger group. Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 4 Apr 2016 00:15, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote: Hi all I see a straightforward choice. Either we could wait to share the documents with the full group until that certification is available, leaving less review time, or we could run the processes in parallel - CCWG review/input and finalisation. I'm strongly supportive of the second approach. It gives all of us more time to digest the very large document, to understand it and to ensure our feedback is absorbed and taken into account. As always, in a perfect world, we could have waited and done these things one after another. And as always, the world is not perfect. Speak with you all soon! cheers Jordan On 4 April 2016 at 09:55, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Milton, What they are asking is fine, but it should be that they confirm/believe it's consistent with the recommendations (to the best of their knowledge). The statement by the legal team did not confirm that. It instead implies that such confirmation will come on the publication day which IMO is not what has been done in the past. I am not underestimating the capacity of the "volunteer" CCWG but i am not so certain we could review all these effectively, but if what is provided to us is a document that has been agreed to by the DUO then there is the likelihood that we may only be seeing some few inconsistencies and way be missing just a few if any at all. While this current process can continue (even though I would have preferred to avoid this back and forth), I am of the opinion that it will be good to have a review period after legal confirm draft before publishing for PC. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 Apr 2016 22:35, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> wrote: Well, Seun, maybe they are asking us for our opinion as to whether the draft meets the recommendations and if not, what needs to change. (Or am I too optimistic about the process?) I don't think it's all helpful to be reviewing a document that has not be agreed to by the DUO to accurately reflect the intent of the proposal(s). The idea is that if such action has happened prior to the CCWG/CWG looking at the draft then there will be less possibility of missing critical parts of the document. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-4-495-2118 <tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) | +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob) | Skype: jordancarter <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> jordan@internetnz.net.nz | www.internetnz.nz A better world through a better Internet _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Co-Chairs I have started to study the draft . I am on Section 2.2 of Article 1. There are changes and qualifiers and additions in the areas that I compared Word by words. However, the part started from "Powers" I do not find any precise trace in the supplemental Proposal. Moreover, making such accuracy check by one person takes a lot of time. What is your Plan for such accuracy cks Regards Kavouss 2016-04-04 9:22 GMT+02:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>:
Seun,
You seem to imply that the document we have circulated was not agreed on by all lawyers team, or that there would be disagreements. I believe this is based on an interpretation of the lawyer’s note, but I have absolutely no indication that this is the case. My understanding is that our legal team, due to the heavy drafting workload they have been involved in (including a lot of “holding the pen”), has not yet had time to get back to the report and review item by item that everything was ok. The “testing” has not yet occurred if you will.
We can certainly clarify that with our legal team.
Meanwhile, we are in agreement about the 2nd approach.
Best
Mathieu
*De :* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *De la part de* Seun Ojedeji *Envoyé :* lundi 4 avril 2016 05:54 *À :* Jordan Carter *Cc :* Accountability Cross Community *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version
Maybe i have not been quite clear enough, I am supportive of the second approach as well (Infact I'd suggest during the planning that the larger group be provided update as the development of the document continues just for the same purpose mentioned by Jordan).
However, the update that we receive from the team should always be that which has been agreed to by both sides of the legal team (i.e the ICANN legal and CCWG legal[1]) to be consistent with the proposal. Since that does not seem to be the case with the document recently released, then I think there should be some review time window provided between when the legal team certifies a final draft document and publication for PC.
I will leave it at that and not try to further explain myself on this point again (so as not to increase the thread unnecessarily).
Regards 1. What was agreed during the planning was that CCWG legal gets the first shot at drafting, ICANN legal reviews and comments when necessary and it is an update of that document(including any possible disagreement points) that gets forwarded to the larger group. Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 4 Apr 2016 00:15, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all
I see a straightforward choice. Either we could wait to share the documents with the full group until that certification is available, leaving less review time, or we could run the processes in parallel - CCWG review/input and finalisation.
I'm strongly supportive of the second approach. It gives all of us more time to digest the very large document, to understand it and to ensure our feedback is absorbed and taken into account.
As always, in a perfect world, we could have waited and done these things one after another. And as always, the world is not perfect.
Speak with you all soon!
cheers
Jordan
On 4 April 2016 at 09:55, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Milton,
What they are asking is fine, but it should be that they confirm/believe it's consistent with the recommendations (to the best of their knowledge). The statement by the legal team did not confirm that. It instead implies that such confirmation will come on the publication day which IMO is not what has been done in the past.
I am not underestimating the capacity of the "volunteer" CCWG but i am not so certain we could review all these effectively, but if what is provided to us is a document that has been agreed to by the DUO then there is the likelihood that we may only be seeing some few inconsistencies and way be missing just a few if any at all. While this current process can continue (even though I would have preferred to avoid this back and forth), I am of the opinion that it will be good to have a review period after legal confirm draft before publishing for PC.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 3 Apr 2016 22:35, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
Well, Seun, maybe they are asking us for our opinion as to whether the draft meets the recommendations and if not, what needs to change. (Or am I too optimistic about the process?)
I don't think it's all helpful to be reviewing a document that has not be agreed to by the DUO to accurately reflect the intent of the proposal(s). The idea is that if such action has happened prior to the CCWG/CWG looking at the draft then there will be less possibility of missing critical parts of the document.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ *
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) | Skype: jordancarter jordan@internetnz.net.nz | www.internetnz.nz
*A better world through a better Internet*
_______________________________________________ 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
Not unexpected but nevertheless disturbing this lack of expectation (of excellence). This (modeled on Giovanni's) Platonic view can beused to justify almost everything... el On 2016-04-04 00:14, Jordan Carter wrote: [...]
As always, in a perfect world, we could have waited and done these things one after another. And as always, the world is not perfect. Jordan [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
PDF please, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4
On 3 Apr 2016, at 13:16, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
In anticipation of our calls this week, please find below a note from the lawyers group, the draft bylaws as well as an issue list.
It is important to read the lawyers notes as they quite efficiently describe the context and status of the work. Please review them for any process related question.
The purpose of our calls this week will be to address the issue list questions (questions 1-7 & 25-34 are for the CCWG, the others for CWG).
Should any other issue be added to the list based on your respective reviews, please raise your questions on the list for transparency.
Best regards,
Mathieu --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style
Début du message transféré :
Expéditeur: John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord <bylaws-coord@icann.org> Date: 3 avril 2016 13:16:28 UTC+2 Destinataire: bylaws-coord@icann.org Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan@sidley.com>, "Cc: Zagorin, Janet S." <jzagorin@sidley.com>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton@sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN@adlercolvin.com>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer@sidley.com>, "Mohan, Vivek" <vivek.mohan@sidley.com>, "Clark, Michael A." <mclark@sidley.com>, "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher@sidley.com>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>, "Kerry, Cameron" <ckerry@sidley.com>, "McNicholas, Edward R." <emcnicholas@sidley.com>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran@icann.org>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos@icann.org>, "Boelter, Jessica C.K." <jboelter@sidley.com>, "Fuller, Miles" <wfuller@sidley.com>, "Tam, Tennie H." <tennie.tam@sidley.com> Objet: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version Répondre à: John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey@icann.org> Dear Bylaws Coordination Group,
Please find attached a document – DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr) (“DRAFT BYLAWS”) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the last full draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to provide another full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2 April. The DRAFT BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the legal drafting group. There is also an Issue List attached, which are a set of additional questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws Coordination Group.
We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week
Recent Work – During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made up of Sidley’s team, Adler’s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and worked through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN Bylaws. Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws Coordination Group during this two-week period asking questions and incorporating that feedback into the new draft. There is likely to be the need for some additional discussions as we work toward a public comment version of the new ICANN bylaws.
More Work to Do – There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions, and polishing the draft before publication for public comment. The legal teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and comments during this period.
Legal Teams have not yet “certified” – Since a) the Bylaws Coordination Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these DRAFT BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is still review and polishing to be done by the legal teams – the legal teams have not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the recommendations within the Proposals.
As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version for Public Comment
Next Steps –
1) Now until 13 April – members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide feedback to legal teams;
2) Now until 18 April, (with particular focus during week of 13-18 April) – legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with the Bylaws Drafting Group;
3) 20 April – posting date for public comment period for new proposed bylaws – with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets the proposal recommendations.
———
As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days, to get ICANN’s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these important changes.
We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them in the spirit that they are offered… to help all of us to be able to collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way possible — to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community empowered ICANN.
John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei
<Issues List for Bylaws Coordination Group (April 2 2016).docx>
<DRAFT-NEW-ICANN-BYLAWS-vers2APR.docx>
_____________________ ____________________
_______________________________________________ bylaws-coord mailing list 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
I exported this PDF, for those who need it. It has two comments in it from me already, but I hope you all can read around them. They're both nits. A On Sun, Apr 03, 2016 at 03:48:51PM +0100, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
PDF please,
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4
On 3 Apr 2016, at 13:16, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
In anticipation of our calls this week, please find below a note from the lawyers group, the draft bylaws as well as an issue list.
It is important to read the lawyers notes as they quite efficiently describe the context and status of the work. Please review them for any process related question.
The purpose of our calls this week will be to address the issue list questions (questions 1-7 & 25-34 are for the CCWG, the others for CWG).
Should any other issue be added to the list based on your respective reviews, please raise your questions on the list for transparency.
Best regards,
Mathieu --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style
Début du message transféré :
Expéditeur: John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord <bylaws-coord@icann.org> Date: 3 avril 2016 13:16:28 UTC+2 Destinataire: bylaws-coord@icann.org Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan@sidley.com>, "Cc: Zagorin, Janet S." <jzagorin@sidley.com>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton@sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN@adlercolvin.com>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer@sidley.com>, "Mohan, Vivek" <vivek.mohan@sidley.com>, "Clark, Michael A." <mclark@sidley.com>, "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher@sidley.com>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>, "Kerry, Cameron" <ckerry@sidley.com>, "McNicholas, Edward R." <emcnicholas@sidley.com>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran@icann.org>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos@icann.org>, "Boelter, Jessica C.K." <jboelter@sidley.com>, "Fuller, Miles" <wfuller@sidley.com>, "Tam, Tennie H." <tennie.tam@sidley.com> Objet: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version Répondre à: John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey@icann.org> Dear Bylaws Coordination Group,
Please find attached a document – DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr) (“DRAFT BYLAWS”) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the last full draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to provide another full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2 April. The DRAFT BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the legal drafting group. There is also an Issue List attached, which are a set of additional questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws Coordination Group.
We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week
Recent Work – During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made up of Sidley’s team, Adler’s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and worked through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN Bylaws. Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws Coordination Group during this two-week period asking questions and incorporating that feedback into the new draft. There is likely to be the need for some additional discussions as we work toward a public comment version of the new ICANN bylaws.
More Work to Do – There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions, and polishing the draft before publication for public comment. The legal teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and comments during this period.
Legal Teams have not yet “certified” – Since a) the Bylaws Coordination Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these DRAFT BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is still review and polishing to be done by the legal teams – the legal teams have not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the recommendations within the Proposals.
As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version for Public Comment
Next Steps –
1) Now until 13 April – members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide feedback to legal teams;
2) Now until 18 April, (with particular focus during week of 13-18 April) – legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with the Bylaws Drafting Group;
3) 20 April – posting date for public comment period for new proposed bylaws – with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets the proposal recommendations.
———
As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days, to get ICANN’s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these important changes.
We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them in the spirit that they are offered… to help all of us to be able to collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way possible — to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community empowered ICANN.
John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei
<Issues List for Bylaws Coordination Group (April 2 2016).docx>
<DRAFT-NEW-ICANN-BYLAWS-vers2APR.docx>
_____________________ ____________________
_______________________________________________ bylaws-coord mailing list 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Dear Mathieu, Unfortunately, I am not as smart as many of you. I reiterate once again that there are to prerequisite requirement to examine the draft 1. Text of existing bylaws amended as per CCWG Supplemental Proposal and ICG proposal ( which include CWG Proposal)with revision marks 2 Cross reference each amendment shown with revision marks to the existing CCWG ICG Proposal . I am not in agreement with Seun for a side by side doc. due to the fact that I have to spend considerable amount of time to compare word by word that type of presentation. I do not know why from the very beginning such arrangements were not made. Once again NO RUSH Regards Kavouss 2016-04-03 17:11 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>:
I exported this PDF, for those who need it. It has two comments in it from me already, but I hope you all can read around them. They're both nits.
A
On Sun, Apr 03, 2016 at 03:48:51PM +0100, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
PDF please,
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4
On 3 Apr 2016, at 13:16, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
In anticipation of our calls this week, please find below a note from the lawyers group, the draft bylaws as well as an issue list.
It is important to read the lawyers notes as they quite efficiently describe the context and status of the work. Please review them for any process related question.
The purpose of our calls this week will be to address the issue list questions (questions 1-7 & 25-34 are for the CCWG, the others for CWG).
Should any other issue be added to the list based on your respective reviews, please raise your questions on the list for transparency.
Best regards,
Mathieu --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style
Début du message transféré :
Expéditeur: John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord <bylaws-coord@icann.org> Date: 3 avril 2016 13:16:28 UTC+2 Destinataire: bylaws-coord@icann.org Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan@sidley.com>, "Cc: Zagorin, Janet S." <jzagorin@sidley.com>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton@sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN@adlercolvin.com>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." < jhofheimer@sidley.com>, "Mohan, Vivek" <vivek.mohan@sidley.com>, "Clark, Michael A." <mclark@sidley.com>, "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher@sidley.com>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>, "Kerry, Cameron" < ckerry@sidley.com>, "McNicholas, Edward R." <emcnicholas@sidley.com>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran@icann.org>, Amy Stathos < amy.stathos@icann.org>, "Boelter, Jessica C.K." <jboelter@sidley.com>, "Fuller, Miles" <wfuller@sidley.com>, "Tam, Tennie H." < tennie.tam@sidley.com> Objet: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version Répondre à: John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey@icann.org> Dear Bylaws Coordination Group,
Please find attached a document – DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr) (“DRAFT BYLAWS”) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the last full draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to provide another full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2 April. The DRAFT BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the legal drafting group. There is also an Issue List attached, which are a set of additional questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws Coordination Group.
We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week
Recent Work – During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made up of Sidley’s team, Adler’s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and worked through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN Bylaws. Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws Coordination Group during this two-week period asking questions and incorporating that feedback into the new draft. There is likely to be the need for some additional discussions as we work toward a public comment version of the new ICANN bylaws.
More Work to Do – There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions, and polishing the draft before publication for public comment. The legal teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and comments during this period.
Legal Teams have not yet “certified” – Since a) the Bylaws Coordination Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these DRAFT BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is still review and polishing to be done by the legal teams – the legal teams have not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the recommendations within the Proposals.
As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version for Public Comment
Next Steps –
1) Now until 13 April – members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide feedback to legal teams;
2) Now until 18 April, (with particular focus during week of 13-18 April) – legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with the Bylaws Drafting Group;
3) 20 April – posting date for public comment period for new proposed bylaws – with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets the proposal recommendations.
———
As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days, to get ICANN’s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these important changes.
We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them in the spirit that they are offered… to help all of us to be able to collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way possible — to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community empowered ICANN.
John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei
<Issues List for Bylaws Coordination Group (April 2 2016).docx>
<DRAFT-NEW-ICANN-BYLAWS-vers2APR.docx>
_____________________ ____________________
_______________________________________________ bylaws-coord mailing list 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
PDF version of the draft Bylaws Attached and issues list attached. B. On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
In anticipation of our calls this week, please find below a note from the lawyers group, the draft bylaws as well as an issue list.
It is important to read the lawyers notes as they quite efficiently describe the context and status of the work. Please review them for any process related question.
The purpose of our calls this week will be to address the issue list questions (questions 1-7 & 25-34 are for the CCWG, the others for CWG).
Should any other issue be added to the list based on your respective reviews, please raise your questions on the list for transparency.
Best regards,
Mathieu --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style
Début du message transféré :
*Expéditeur:* John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord <bylaws-coord@icann.org> *Date:* 3 avril 2016 13:16:28 UTC+2 *Destinataire:* bylaws-coord@icann.org *Cc:* "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan@sidley.com>, "Cc: Zagorin, Janet S." < jzagorin@sidley.com>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton@sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler < ICANN@adlercolvin.com>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer@sidley.com>, "Mohan, Vivek" <vivek.mohan@sidley.com>, "Clark, Michael A." < mclark@sidley.com>, "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher@sidley.com>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>, "Kerry, Cameron" <ckerry@sidley.com>, "McNicholas, Edward R." <emcnicholas@sidley.com>, Daniel Halloran < daniel.halloran@icann.org>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos@icann.org>, "Boelter, Jessica C.K." <jboelter@sidley.com>, "Fuller, Miles" < wfuller@sidley.com>, "Tam, Tennie H." <tennie.tam@sidley.com> *Objet:* *[bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version* *Répondre à:* John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey@icann.org>
Dear Bylaws Coordination Group,
Please find attached a document – DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr) (“DRAFT BYLAWS”) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the last full draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to provide another full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2 April. The DRAFT BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the legal drafting group. There is also an Issue List attached, which are a set of additional questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws Coordination Group.
We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week
*Recent Work* – During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made up of Sidley’s team, Adler’s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and worked through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN Bylaws. Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws Coordination Group during this two-week period asking questions and incorporating that feedback into the new draft. There is likely to be the need for some additional discussions as we work toward a public comment version of the new ICANN bylaws.
*More Work to Do* – There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions, and polishing the draft before publication for public comment. The legal teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and comments during this period.
*Legal Teams have not yet “certified”* – Since a) the Bylaws Coordination Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these DRAFT BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is still review and polishing to be done by the legal teams – the legal teams have not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the recommendations within the Proposals.
As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version for Public Comment
*Next Steps* –
1) *Now until 13 April* – members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide feedback to legal teams;
2) *Now until 18 April*, (with particular focus during week of 13-18 April) – legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with the Bylaws Drafting Group;
3) *20 April* – posting date for public comment period for new proposed bylaws – with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets the proposal recommendations.
———
As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days, to get ICANN’s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these important changes.
We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them in the spirit that they are offered… to help all of us to be able to collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way possible — to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community empowered ICANN.
John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei
_____________________ ____________________
_______________________________________________ bylaws-coord mailing list 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
thanks, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On 3 Apr 2016, at 16:29, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> wrote:
PDF version of the draft Bylaws Attached and issues list attached.
B.
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote: Dear colleagues,
In anticipation of our calls this week, please find below a note from the lawyers group, the draft bylaws as well as an issue list.
It is important to read the lawyers notes as they quite efficiently describe the context and status of the work. Please review them for any process related question.
The purpose of our calls this week will be to address the issue list questions (questions 1-7 & 25-34 are for the CCWG, the others for CWG).
Should any other issue be added to the list based on your respective reviews, please raise your questions on the list for transparency.
Best regards,
Mathieu --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style
Début du message transféré :
Expéditeur: John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord <bylaws-coord@icann.org> Date: 3 avril 2016 13:16:28 UTC+2 Destinataire: bylaws-coord@icann.org Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan@sidley.com>, "Cc: Zagorin, Janet S." <jzagorin@sidley.com>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton@sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN@adlercolvin.com>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer@sidley.com>, "Mohan, Vivek" <vivek.mohan@sidley.com>, "Clark, Michael A." <mclark@sidley.com>, "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher@sidley.com>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>, "Kerry, Cameron" <ckerry@sidley.com>, "McNicholas, Edward R." <emcnicholas@sidley.com>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran@icann.org>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos@icann.org>, "Boelter, Jessica C.K." <jboelter@sidley.com>, "Fuller, Miles" <wfuller@sidley.com>, "Tam, Tennie H." <tennie.tam@sidley.com> Objet: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version Répondre à: John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey@icann.org> Dear Bylaws Coordination Group,
Please find attached a document – DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr) (“DRAFT BYLAWS”) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the last full draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to provide another full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2 April. The DRAFT BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the legal drafting group. There is also an Issue List attached, which are a set of additional questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws Coordination Group.
We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week
Recent Work – During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made up of Sidley’s team, Adler’s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and worked through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN Bylaws. Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws Coordination Group during this two-week period asking questions and incorporating that feedback into the new draft. There is likely to be the need for some additional discussions as we work toward a public comment version of the new ICANN bylaws.
More Work to Do – There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions, and polishing the draft before publication for public comment. The legal teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and comments during this period.
Legal Teams have not yet “certified” – Since a) the Bylaws Coordination Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these DRAFT BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is still review and polishing to be done by the legal teams – the legal teams have not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the recommendations within the Proposals.
As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version for Public Comment
Next Steps –
1) Now until 13 April – members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide feedback to legal teams;
2) Now until 18 April, (with particular focus during week of 13-18 April) – legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with the Bylaws Drafting Group;
3) 20 April – posting date for public comment period for new proposed bylaws – with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets the proposal recommendations.
———
As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days, to get ICANN’s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these important changes.
We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them in the spirit that they are offered… to help all of us to be able to collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way possible — to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community empowered ICANN.
John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei
_____________________ ____________________
_______________________________________________ bylaws-coord mailing list 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
<DRAFT-NEW-ICANN-BYLAWS-vers2APR.pdf> <Issues List for Bylaws Coordination Group (April 2 2016).pdf> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Bernard: ICG members are also requesting a redlined version of the bylaws, showing where all changes have been made. Some of us feel that the viability of the review process would be undermined if that is not made available very quickly. An acknowledgement of and response to these requests at any rate is required. --MM From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte Sent: Sunday, April 3, 2016 11:30 AM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version PDF version of the draft Bylaws Attached and issues list attached. B. On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear colleagues, In anticipation of our calls this week, please find below a note from the lawyers group, the draft bylaws as well as an issue list. It is important to read the lawyers notes as they quite efficiently describe the context and status of the work. Please review them for any process related question. The purpose of our calls this week will be to address the issue list questions (questions 1-7 & 25-34 are for the CCWG, the others for CWG). Should any other issue be added to the list based on your respective reviews, please raise your questions on the list for transparency. Best regards, Mathieu --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style Début du message transféré : Expéditeur: John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord <bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>> Date: 3 avril 2016 13:16:28 UTC+2 Destinataire: bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan@sidley.com<mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com>>, "Cc: Zagorin, Janet S." <jzagorin@sidley.com<mailto:jzagorin@sidley.com>>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton@sidley.com<mailto:thilton@sidley.com>>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN@adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>>, "Mohan, Vivek" <vivek.mohan@sidley.com<mailto:vivek.mohan@sidley.com>>, "Clark, Michael A." <mclark@sidley.com<mailto:mclark@sidley.com>>, "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher@sidley.com<mailto:rboucher@sidley.com>>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, "Kerry, Cameron" <ckerry@sidley.com<mailto:ckerry@sidley.com>>, "McNicholas, Edward R." <emcnicholas@sidley.com<mailto:emcnicholas@sidley.com>>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran@icann.org<mailto:daniel.halloran@icann.org>>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos@icann.org<mailto:amy.stathos@icann.org>>, "Boelter, Jessica C.K." <jboelter@sidley.com<mailto:jboelter@sidley.com>>, "Fuller, Miles" <wfuller@sidley.com<mailto:wfuller@sidley.com>>, "Tam, Tennie H." <tennie.tam@sidley.com<mailto:tennie.tam@sidley.com>> Objet: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version Répondre à: John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey@icann.org<mailto:john.jeffrey@icann.org>> Dear Bylaws Coordination Group, Please find attached a document – DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr) (“DRAFT BYLAWS”) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the last full draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to provide another full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2 April. The DRAFT BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the legal drafting group. There is also an Issue List attached, which are a set of additional questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws Coordination Group. We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week Recent Work – During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made up of Sidley’s team, Adler’s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and worked through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN Bylaws. Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws Coordination Group during this two-week period asking questions and incorporating that feedback into the new draft. There is likely to be the need for some additional discussions as we work toward a public comment version of the new ICANN bylaws. More Work to Do – There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions, and polishing the draft before publication for public comment. The legal teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and comments during this period. Legal Teams have not yet “certified” – Since a) the Bylaws Coordination Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these DRAFT BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is still review and polishing to be done by the legal teams – the legal teams have not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the recommendations within the Proposals. As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version for Public Comment Next Steps – 1) Now until 13 April – members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide feedback to legal teams; 2) Now until 18 April, (with particular focus during week of 13-18 April) – legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with the Bylaws Drafting Group; 3) 20 April – posting date for public comment period for new proposed bylaws – with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets the proposal recommendations. ——— As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days, to get ICANN’s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these important changes. We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them in the spirit that they are offered… to help all of us to be able to collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way possible — to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community empowered ICANN. John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei _____________________ ____________________ _______________________________________________ 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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Issue 6 reads (in part): "There remains the ability for the Board to remove directors without cause, but only after a ¾ vote of the Board and consent of the EC. However, the proposal is silent on how the Board could obtain the consent of the EC." As far as I can recall, the proposal is silent on this entire matter, not only on how the EC could consent. I recall no restriction being made by the CCWG on the right of the Board to remove its Members. I SUSPECT I understand why this is there. Specifically, under the current Bylaws, Directors are appointed to the Board by the AC/SOs and NomCom, but there is nothing in the California Corporations Code (CCC) that really sactions this process. It exists because it is written in the Bylaws and no one has chosen to question it. Since we are now appointing directors using a Designator, a formal CCC process, I suspect that other parts of the CCC do not allow the removal of Directors without Designator approval. Another change I noted was the introduction of the concept of the EC Council. I support it and in fact the ALAC had drawn attention to a need for such a body, but it should really be flagged as a construct that was needed to allow the Bylaws to be clearly drafted (and then followed!) Perhaps I slept through parts of some meetings and did not read the document sufficient well, but if so, several other people I checked with had the identical lapses. It would be REALLY good if changes demanded by the CCC or by the necessity to draft clear Bylaws were highlighted so we do not end up needlessly chasing red herring concerns. Alan At 03/04/2016 08:16 AM, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear colleagues,
In anticipation of our calls this week, please find below a note from the lawyers group, the draft bylaws as well as an issue list.
It is important to read the lawyers notes as they quite efficiently describe the context and status of the work. Please review them for any process related question.
The purpose of our calls this week will be to address the issue list questions (questions 1-7 & 25-34 are for the CCWG, the others for CWG).
Should any other issue be added to the list based on your respective reviews, please raise your questions on the list for transparency.
Best regards,
Mathieu --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style
Début du message transféré :
Expéditeur: John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord <<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>bylaws-coord@icann.org> Date: 3 avril 2016 13:16:28 UTC+2 Destinataire: <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>bylaws-coord@icann.org Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <<mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com>sflanagan@sidley.com>, "Cc: Zagorin, Janet S." <<mailto:jzagorin@sidley.com>jzagorin@sidley.com>, "Hilton, Tyler" <<mailto:thilton@sidley.com>thilton@sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler <<mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>ICANN@adlercolvin.com>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>jhofheimer@sidley.com>, "Mohan, Vivek" <<mailto:vivek.mohan@sidley.com>vivek.mohan@sidley.com>, "Clark, Michael A." <<mailto:mclark@sidley.com>mclark@sidley.com>, "Boucher, Rick" <<mailto:rboucher@sidley.com>rboucher@sidley.com>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>, "Kerry, Cameron" <<mailto:ckerry@sidley.com>ckerry@sidley.com>, "McNicholas, Edward R." <<mailto:emcnicholas@sidley.com>emcnicholas@sidley.com>, Daniel Halloran <<mailto:daniel.halloran@icann.org>daniel.halloran@icann.org>, Amy Stathos <<mailto:amy.stathos@icann.org>amy.stathos@icann.org>, "Boelter, Jessica C.K." <<mailto:jboelter@sidley.com>jboelter@sidley.com>, "Fuller, Miles" <<mailto:wfuller@sidley.com>wfuller@sidley.com>, "Tam, Tennie H." <<mailto:tennie.tam@sidley.com>tennie.tam@sidley.com> Objet: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version Répondre à : John Jeffrey <<mailto:john.jeffrey@icann.org>john.jeffrey@icann.org>
Dear Bylaws Coordination Group,
Please find attached a document DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr) (âDRAFT BYLAWSâ) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the last full draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to provide another full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2 April. The DRAFT BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the legal drafting group. There is also an Issue List attached, which are a set of additional questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws Coordination Group.
We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week
Recent Work During the past two weeks tthe legal drafting group, made up of Sidleyâs team, Adlerâs team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and worked through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN Bylaws. Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws Coordination Group during this two-week period asking questions and incorporating that feedback into the new draft. There is likely to be the need for some additional discussions as we work toward a public comment version of the new ICANN bylaws.
More Work to Do There is sttill work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions, and polishing the draft before publication for public comment. The legal teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and comments during this period.
Legal Teams have not yet âcertifiedâ Since aa) the Bylaws Coordination Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these DRAFT BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is still review and polishing to be done by the legal teams the legal teams have not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the recommendations within the Proposals.
As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version for Public Comment
Next Steps
1) Now until 13 April members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide feedback to legal teams;
2) Now until 18 April, (with particular focus during week of 13-18 April) legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS woorking in coordination with the Bylaws Drafting Group;
3) 20 April posting date forr public comment period for new proposed bylaws with llegal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets the proposal recommendations.
Re: #32: “During the SO/AC director removal process, should there be a requirement to hold a dialogue between the relevant director, the SO/AC and the Chair of the Board prior to the SO/AC accepting the removal petition? The CCWG Proposal contemplated such a dialogue in the context of NomCom director removal (Paragraph 57 of Annex 4) but did not specifically mention it in the context of SO/AC director removal.” This seems an omission. The third proposal had the dialogue requirement only for SO/AC director removal. In discussions I believe it was agreed to add the requirement also for discussion to NomCom (see attached records from meeting #76) It looks like during the drafting of the 2/10 version for legal review the requirement was inadvertently removed from SO/AC directors.(see attached V0.1BT) From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Sunday, April 3, 2016 8:16 AM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version Dear colleagues, In anticipation of our calls this week, please find below a note from the lawyers group, the draft bylaws as well as an issue list. It is important to read the lawyers notes as they quite efficiently describe the context and status of the work. Please review them for any process related question. The purpose of our calls this week will be to address the issue list questions (questions 1-7 & 25-34 are for the CCWG, the others for CWG). Should any other issue be added to the list based on your respective reviews, please raise your questions on the list for transparency. Best regards, Mathieu --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style Début du message transféré : Expéditeur: John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord <bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>> Date: 3 avril 2016 13:16:28 UTC+2 Destinataire: bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan@sidley.com<mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com>>, "Cc: Zagorin, Janet S." <jzagorin@sidley.com<mailto:jzagorin@sidley.com>>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton@sidley.com<mailto:thilton@sidley.com>>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN@adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>>, "Mohan, Vivek" <vivek.mohan@sidley.com<mailto:vivek.mohan@sidley.com>>, "Clark, Michael A." <mclark@sidley.com<mailto:mclark@sidley.com>>, "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher@sidley.com<mailto:rboucher@sidley.com>>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, "Kerry, Cameron" <ckerry@sidley.com<mailto:ckerry@sidley.com>>, "McNicholas, Edward R." <emcnicholas@sidley.com<mailto:emcnicholas@sidley.com>>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran@icann.org<mailto:daniel.halloran@icann.org>>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos@icann.org<mailto:amy.stathos@icann.org>>, "Boelter, Jessica C.K." <jboelter@sidley.com<mailto:jboelter@sidley.com>>, "Fuller, Miles" <wfuller@sidley.com<mailto:wfuller@sidley.com>>, "Tam, Tennie H." <tennie.tam@sidley.com<mailto:tennie.tam@sidley.com>> Objet: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version Répondre à: John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey@icann.org<mailto:john.jeffrey@icann.org>> Dear Bylaws Coordination Group, Please find attached a document – DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr) (“DRAFT BYLAWS”) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the last full draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to provide another full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2 April. The DRAFT BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the legal drafting group. There is also an Issue List attached, which are a set of additional questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws Coordination Group. We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week Recent Work – During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made up of Sidley’s team, Adler’s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and worked through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN Bylaws. Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws Coordination Group during this two-week period asking questions and incorporating that feedback into the new draft. There is likely to be the need for some additional discussions as we work toward a public comment version of the new ICANN bylaws. More Work to Do – There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions, and polishing the draft before publication for public comment. The legal teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and comments during this period. Legal Teams have not yet “certified” – Since a) the Bylaws Coordination Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these DRAFT BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is still review and polishing to be done by the legal teams – the legal teams have not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the recommendations within the Proposals. As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version for Public Comment Next Steps – 1) Now until 13 April – members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide feedback to legal teams; 2) Now until 18 April, (with particular focus during week of 13-18 April) – legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with the Bylaws Drafting Group; 3) 20 April – posting date for public comment period for new proposed bylaws – with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets the proposal recommendations. ——— As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days, to get ICANN’s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these important changes. We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them in the spirit that they are offered… to help all of us to be able to collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way possible — to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community empowered ICANN. John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei _____________________ ____________________ _______________________________________________ bylaws-coord mailing list bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord
Dear All, I have been following the discussions online. I would like to say that I am currently in Geneva for the MAG Open consultation meeting. I will when I am free make time to review and read the documents and highlight issues I see. Thank you in advance for understanding, GAC Vice Chair is also here at the MAG. Many thanks, Sala On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier@intel.com> wrote:
Re: #32:
“*During the SO/AC director removal process, should there be a requirement to hold a dialogue between the relevant director, the SO/AC and the Chair of the Board prior to the SO/AC accepting the removal petition? The CCWG Proposal contemplated such a dialogue in the context of NomCom director removal (Paragraph 57 of Annex 4) but did not specifically mention it in the context of SO/AC director removal*.”
This seems an omission.
The third proposal had the dialogue requirement only for SO/AC director removal. In discussions I believe it was agreed to add the requirement also for discussion to NomCom (see attached records from meeting #76)
It looks like during the drafting of the 2/10 version for legal review the requirement was inadvertently removed from SO/AC directors.(see attached V0.1BT)
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mathieu Weill *Sent:* Sunday, April 3, 2016 8:16 AM *To:* CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version
Dear colleagues,
In anticipation of our calls this week, please find below a note from the lawyers group, the draft bylaws as well as an issue list.
It is important to read the lawyers notes as they quite efficiently describe the context and status of the work. Please review them for any process related question.
The purpose of our calls this week will be to address the issue list questions (questions 1-7 & 25-34 are for the CCWG, the others for CWG).
Should any other issue be added to the list based on your respective reviews, please raise your questions on the list for transparency.
Best regards,
Mathieu
---------------
Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style
Début du message transféré :
*Expéditeur:* John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord <bylaws-coord@icann.org> *Date:* 3 avril 2016 13:16:28 UTC+2 *Destinataire:* bylaws-coord@icann.org *Cc:* "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan@sidley.com>, "Cc: Zagorin, Janet S." < jzagorin@sidley.com>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton@sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler < ICANN@adlercolvin.com>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer@sidley.com>, "Mohan, Vivek" <vivek.mohan@sidley.com>, "Clark, Michael A." < mclark@sidley.com>, "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher@sidley.com>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>, "Kerry, Cameron" <ckerry@sidley.com>, "McNicholas, Edward R." <emcnicholas@sidley.com>, Daniel Halloran < daniel.halloran@icann.org>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos@icann.org>, "Boelter, Jessica C.K." <jboelter@sidley.com>, "Fuller, Miles" < wfuller@sidley.com>, "Tam, Tennie H." <tennie.tam@sidley.com> *Objet:* *[bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version* *Répondre à:* John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey@icann.org>
Dear Bylaws Coordination Group,
Please find attached a document – DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr) (“DRAFT BYLAWS”) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the last full draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to provide another full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2 April. The DRAFT BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the legal drafting group. There is also an Issue List attached, which are a set of additional questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws Coordination Group.
We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week
*Recent Work* – During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made up of Sidley’s team, Adler’s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and worked through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN Bylaws. Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws Coordination Group during this two-week period asking questions and incorporating that feedback into the new draft. There is likely to be the need for some additional discussions as we work toward a public comment version of the new ICANN bylaws.
*More Work to Do* – There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions, and polishing the draft before publication for public comment. The legal teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and comments during this period.
*Legal Teams have not yet “certified”* – Since a) the Bylaws Coordination Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these DRAFT BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is still review and polishing to be done by the legal teams – the legal teams have not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the recommendations within the Proposals.
As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version for Public Comment
*Next Steps* –
1) *Now until 13 April* – members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide feedback to legal teams;
2) *Now until 18 April*, (with particular focus during week of 13-18 April) – legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with the Bylaws Drafting Group;
3) *20 April* – posting date for public comment period for new proposed bylaws – with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets the proposal recommendations.
———
As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days, to get ICANN’s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these important changes.
We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them in the spirit that they are offered… to help all of us to be able to collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way possible — to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community empowered ICANN.
John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei
_____________________
____________________
_______________________________________________ bylaws-coord mailing list 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
-- *Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala T* *P. O. Box 17862* *Suva* *Republic of Fiji* *Cell: +679 7656770; * *Home: +679 3362003* *Twitter: @SalanietaT* *"You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the greatest quality of the mind next to honour." Aristotle*
I’d like to add an additional question to the 34 circulated by our attorneys on Sunday. I believe the bylaws draft implies that the Human Rights Framework of Interpretation (FOI-HR) should be a basis for IRP challenges on ICANN action or inaction. I do not believe that is what the CCWG final proposal reflected in Annex 6<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58723827&preview=/5...>, where we proposed this specific bylaws language (para 07): “Within its Core Values, ICANN will commit to respect internationally recognized Human Rights as required by applicable law. This provision does not create any additional obligation for ICANN to respond to or consider any complaint, request, or demand seeking the enforcement of Human Rights by ICANN.” The new draft bylaws that we are now reviewing has a different implication, at 27.3.(c): No person or entity shall be entitled to invoke the reconsideration process provided in Section 4.2 or the independent review process provided in Section 4.3 with respect to this Section 27.3 for any actions by ICANN or the Board occurring prior to the date that the conditions set forth in Section 27.3(b) are satisfied This bylaws draft text implies that the IRP and reconsideration can be used to challenge ICANN actions/inactions based on FOI-HR after it is developed. I can see why the legal team may have assumed something like this, because our final report Annex 6 para 19 explanatory text says: The proposed draft Bylaw also clarifies that no IRP challenges can be made on the grounds of this Bylaw until an FOI-HR is developed and approved as part of Work Stream 2 activities. It further clarifies that acceptance of the FOI-HR will require the same process as for Work Stream 1 recommendations (as agreed for all Work Stream 2 recommendations). But I believe that CCWG made its position clear in our suggested bylaws text, repeated here for convenience: “Within its Core Values, ICANN will commit to respect internationally recognized Human Rights as required by applicable law. This provision does not create any additional obligation for ICANN to respond to or consider any complaint, request, or demand seeking the enforcement of Human Rights by ICANN. “ From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Date: Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 8:16 AM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version Dear colleagues, In anticipation of our calls this week, please find below a note from the lawyers group, the draft bylaws as well as an issue list. It is important to read the lawyers notes as they quite efficiently describe the context and status of the work. Please review them for any process related question. The purpose of our calls this week will be to address the issue list questions (questions 1-7 & 25-34 are for the CCWG, the others for CWG). Should any other issue be added to the list based on your respective reviews, please raise your questions on the list for transparency. Expéditeur: John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord <bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>> Date: 3 avril 2016 13:16:28 UTC+2 Destinataire: bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> Dear Bylaws Coordination Group, Please find attached a document – DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr) (“DRAFT BYLAWS”) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the last full draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to provide another full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2 April. The DRAFT BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the legal drafting group. There is also an Issue List attached, which are a set of additional questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws Coordination Group. We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week Recent Work – During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made up of Sidley’s team, Adler’s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and worked through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN Bylaws. Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws Coordination Group during this two-week period asking questions and incorporating that feedback into the new draft. There is likely to be the need for some additional discussions as we work toward a public comment version of the new ICANN bylaws. More Work to Do – There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions, and polishing the draft before publication for public comment. The legal teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and comments during this period. Legal Teams have not yet “certified” – Since a) the Bylaws Coordination Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these DRAFT BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is still review and polishing to be done by the legal teams – the legal teams have not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the recommendations within the Proposals. As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version for Public Comment Next Steps – 1) Now until 13 April – members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide feedback to legal teams; 2) Now until 18 April, (with particular focus during week of 13-18 April) – legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with the Bylaws Drafting Group; 3) 20 April – posting date for public comment period for new proposed bylaws – with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets the proposal recommendations. ——— As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days, to get ICANN’s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these important changes. We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them in the spirit that they are offered… to help all of us to be able to collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way possible — to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community empowered ICANN. John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei
Good evening: With reference to the Sidley draft of April 2, 2016 ("Questions and Clarifications for Bylaws Coordination Group"), I wish to make a specific comment relating to Question 22 referring to Section 19 of the draft Bylaws concerning the SCWG ("Separation Cross Community Working Group".) Section 19.5 addresses the Composition of the SCWG and the voting rights of its members and liaisons. Section 19.7 (a) addresses the SCWG decision-making procedure. During the CWG conference call on April 4, Sidley raised the issue of how to define the majority of the SCWG (Section 19.7(a)) in the absence of a consensus. The bar of 50+1% was proposed. (Question 22.) I submit that this bar is far too low, and that the general principle of consensus must be maintained. Section 19.5 of the draft Bylaws provides for SCWG to be composed of 13 voting members, 5 non voting liaisons and unlimited other participants. Among the voting members, GNSO and the ccTLDs would hold 9 votes; more than a majority of 7. However, eventual separation of the IANA/PTI function from ICANN would have far reaching implications for many stakeholders which go well beyond the specific interests of DNS Registries and Registrars. It would not be appropriate for the representatives of the Registries and Registrars to be able to determine a separation decision, acting alone, absent consensus in the SCWG. If the proposed composition and voting rights in an SCWG are maintained, it is absolutely essential that the SCWG act by consensus and not by a majority vote. Regards Christopher Wilkinson Begin forwarded message:
From: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version Date: 3 Apr 2016 14:16:21 GMT+02:00 To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Dear colleagues,
In anticipation of our calls this week, please find below a note from the lawyers group, the draft bylaws as well as an issue list.
It is important to read the lawyers notes as they quite efficiently describe the context and status of the work. Please review them for any process related question.
The purpose of our calls this week will be to address the issue list questions (questions 1-7 & 25-34 are for the CCWG, the others for CWG).
Should any other issue be added to the list based on your respective reviews, please raise your questions on the list for transparency.
Best regards,
Mathieu --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style
Début du message transféré :
Expéditeur: John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord <bylaws-coord@icann.org> Date: 3 avril 2016 13:16:28 UTC+2 Destinataire: bylaws-coord@icann.org Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan@sidley.com>, "Cc: Zagorin, Janet S." <jzagorin@sidley.com>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton@sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN@adlercolvin.com>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer@sidley.com>, "Mohan, Vivek" <vivek.mohan@sidley.com>, "Clark, Michael A." <mclark@sidley.com>, "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher@sidley.com>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>, "Kerry, Cameron" <ckerry@sidley.com>, "McNicholas, Edward R." <emcnicholas@sidley.com>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran@icann.org>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos@icann.org>, "Boelter, Jessica C.K." <jboelter@sidley.com>, "Fuller, Miles" <wfuller@sidley.com>, "Tam, Tennie H." <tennie.tam@sidley.com> Objet: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version Répondre à: John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey@icann.org>
Dear Bylaws Coordination Group,
Please find attached a document – DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr) (“DRAFT BYLAWS”) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the last full draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to provide another full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2 April. The DRAFT BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the legal drafting group. There is also an Issue List attached, which are a set of additional questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws Coordination Group.
We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week
Recent Work – During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made up of Sidley’s team, Adler’s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and worked through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN Bylaws. Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws Coordination Group during this two-week period asking questions and incorporating that feedback into the new draft. There is likely to be the need for some additional discussions as we work toward a public comment version of the new ICANN bylaws.
More Work to Do – There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions, and polishing the draft before publication for public comment. The legal teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and comments during this period.
Legal Teams have not yet “certified” – Since a) the Bylaws Coordination Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these DRAFT BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is still review and polishing to be done by the legal teams – the legal teams have not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the recommendations within the Proposals.
As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version for Public Comment
Next Steps –
1) Now until 13 April – members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide feedback to legal teams;
2) Now until 18 April, (with particular focus during week of 13-18 April) – legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with the Bylaws Drafting Group;
3) 20 April – posting date for public comment period for new proposed bylaws – with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets the proposal recommendations.
———
As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days, to get ICANN’s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these important changes.
We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them in the spirit that they are offered… to help all of us to be able to collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way possible — to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community empowered ICANN.
John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei
_____________________ ____________________
_______________________________________________ bylaws-coord mailing list 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
Sounds sensible Regards Jorge Von: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Christopher Wilkinson Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. April 2016 20:41 An: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Betreff: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version - SCWG Wichtigkeit: Hoch Good evening: With reference to the Sidley draft of April 2, 2016 ("Questions and Clarifications for Bylaws Coordination Group"), I wish to make a specific comment relating to Question 22 referring to Section 19 of the draft Bylaws concerning the SCWG ("Separation Cross Community Working Group".) Section 19.5 addresses the Composition of the SCWG and the voting rights of its members and liaisons. Section 19.7 (a) addresses the SCWG decision-making procedure. During the CWG conference call on April 4, Sidley raised the issue of how to define the majority of the SCWG (Section 19.7(a)) in the absence of a consensus. The bar of 50+1% was proposed. (Question 22.) I submit that this bar is far too low, and that the general principle of consensus must be maintained. Section 19.5 of the draft Bylaws provides for SCWG to be composed of 13 voting members, 5 non voting liaisons and unlimited other participants. Among the voting members, GNSO and the ccTLDs would hold 9 votes; more than a majority of 7. However, eventual separation of the IANA/PTI function from ICANN would have far reaching implications for many stakeholders which go well beyond the specific interests of DNS Registries and Registrars. It would not be appropriate for the representatives of the Registries and Registrars to be able to determine a separation decision, acting alone, absent consensus in the SCWG. If the proposed composition and voting rights in an SCWG are maintained, it is absolutely essential that the SCWG act by consensus and not by a majority vote. Regards Christopher Wilkinson Begin forwarded message: From: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version Date: 3 Apr 2016 14:16:21 GMT+02:00 To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Dear colleagues, In anticipation of our calls this week, please find below a note from the lawyers group, the draft bylaws as well as an issue list. It is important to read the lawyers notes as they quite efficiently describe the context and status of the work. Please review them for any process related question. The purpose of our calls this week will be to address the issue list questions (questions 1-7 & 25-34 are for the CCWG, the others for CWG). Should any other issue be added to the list based on your respective reviews, please raise your questions on the list for transparency. Best regards, Mathieu --------------- Depuis mon mobile, d�sol� pour le style D�but du message transf�r� : Exp�diteur: John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord <bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>> Date: 3 avril 2016 13:16:28 UTC+2 Destinataire: bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan@sidley.com<mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com>>, "Cc: Zagorin, Janet S." <jzagorin@sidley.com<mailto:jzagorin@sidley.com>>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton@sidley.com<mailto:thilton@sidley.com>>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN@adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>>, "Mohan, Vivek" <vivek.mohan@sidley.com<mailto:vivek.mohan@sidley.com>>, "Clark, Michael A." <mclark@sidley.com<mailto:mclark@sidley.com>>, "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher@sidley.com<mailto:rboucher@sidley.com>>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, "Kerry, Cameron" <ckerry@sidley.com<mailto:ckerry@sidley.com>>, "McNicholas, Edward R." <emcnicholas@sidley.com<mailto:emcnicholas@sidley.com>>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran@icann.org<mailto:daniel.halloran@icann.org>>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos@icann.org<mailto:amy.stathos@icann.org>>, "Boelter, Jessica C.K." <jboelter@sidley.com<mailto:jboelter@sidley.com>>, "Fuller, Miles" <wfuller@sidley.com<mailto:wfuller@sidley.com>>, "Tam, Tennie H." <tennie.tam@sidley.com<mailto:tennie.tam@sidley.com>> Objet: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version R�pondre �: John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey@icann.org<mailto:john.jeffrey@icann.org>> Dear Bylaws Coordination Group, Please find attached a document � DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr) (�DRAFT BYLAWS�) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the last full draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to provide another full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2 April. The DRAFT BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the legal drafting group. There is also an Issue List attached, which are a set of additional questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws Coordination Group. We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week Recent Work � During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made up of Sidley�s team, Adler�s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and worked through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN Bylaws. Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws Coordination Group during this two-week period asking questions and incorporating that feedback into the new draft. There is likely to be the need for some additional discussions as we work toward a public comment version of the new ICANN bylaws. More Work to Do � There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions, and polishing the draft before publication for public comment. The legal teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and comments during this period. Legal Teams have not yet �certified� � Since a) the Bylaws Coordination Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these DRAFT BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is still review and polishing to be done by the legal teams � the legal teams have not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the recommendations within the Proposals. As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version for Public Comment Next Steps � 1) Now until 13 April � members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide feedback to legal teams; 2) Now until 18 April, (with particular focus during week of 13-18 April) � legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with the Bylaws Drafting Group; 3) 20 April � posting date for public comment period for new proposed bylaws � with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets the proposal recommendations. ��� As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days, to get ICANN�s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these important changes. We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them in the spirit that they are offered� to help all of us to be able to collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way possible � to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community empowered ICANN. John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei _____________________ ____________________ _______________________________________________ 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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (15)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Andrew Sullivan -
Barrack Otieno -
Bernard Turcotte -
Chartier, Mike S -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Jordan Carter -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Mathieu Weill -
Mueller, Milton L -
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro -
Seun Ojedeji -
Steve DelBianco