Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
The CCWG was NOT silent. It said that the EC had the power and the GAC is defined as part of the EC. That notwithstanding, if the removal power were granted solely to those who vote for the selection of NomCom appointees, then the IETF would have to be part of the decisional group that removes NomCom appointed directors. Something that was never even raised. Alan At 12/04/2016 08:06 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
Co-chairs,
I am opposed to this decision on Q29 for several reasons:
* The GAC does not vote for NOMCOM directors, and should not have a vote in their removal. * It is inconsistent with how the CCWG draft treats individual SO/ACs with respect to their appointed directors. The SO/ACs voting on NOMCOM directors should have similar exclusive authority over their removal. * The CCWG proposal is silent on this matter, we should not be inserting new powers for the GAC into the bylaws when they are not explicitly included in the CCWG draft.
I am also opposed procedurally.
On the Board removal of directors discussion, we were told that even though legally the EC had to approve the removals, that the CCWG draft was silent of this, so we could not create a new power for the EC that would infringe on Board powers in the current bylaws. Therefor the approval had to be a rubber stamp.
Here, the CCWG proposal is silent on whether the GAC should have a vote on removing NOMCOM directors. The current bylaws specifically do not give the GAC any vote on the approval or removal of NOMCOM directors. But we are told that we must grant them such authority even though there is no legal requirement for it as we know from the power of individual SO/AC to remove their appointed directors.
How are these two interpretations consistent? Either we add new powers for the EC on Board decisions to remove directors or we do not add new powers for the GAC on removing NOMCOM directors.
Best,
Brett
---------- Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 <http://heritage.org/>heritage.org
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:54 AM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
Forwarding also our lawyerâs clarification on Q29 (please note that the clarification on Q7 is redundant with the previous email).
Best Mathieu
De : <mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org>bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org [mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Rosemary E. Fei via bylaws-coord Envoyé : lundi 11 avril 2016 21:43 à : <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>bylaws-coord@icann.org Cc : ICANN-Adler; Daniel Halloran (<mailto:daniel.halloran@icann.org>daniel.halloran@icann.org); Sidley ICANN CCWG (<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com); Amy Stathos (<mailto:amy.stathos@icann.org>amy.stathos@icann.org) Objet : [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
Dear Bylaws Coordination group:
Please see attached. All three counsels have signed off on these questions from counsel. Pdf versions to follow.
Rosemary and Holly
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Alan, The IETF has never expressed any interest in participating in the EC nor was it discussed to any extent that I can recall. That is not the case with the GAC. Best, Brett ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:25 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; Mathieu Weill; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7 The CCWG was NOT silent. It said that the EC had the power and the GAC is defined as part of the EC. That notwithstanding, if the removal power were granted solely to those who vote for the selection of NomCom appointees, then the IETF would have to be part of the decisional group that removes NomCom appointed directors. Something that was never even raised. Alan At 12/04/2016 08:06 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote: Co-chairs, I am opposed to this decision on Q29 for several reasons: 1. The GAC does not vote for NOMCOM directors, and should not have a vote in their removal. 2. It is inconsistent with how the CCWG draft treats individual SO/ACs with respect to their appointed directors. The SO/ACs voting on NOMCOM directors should have similar exclusive authority over their removal. 3. The CCWG proposal is silent on this matter, we should not be inserting new powers for the GAC into the bylaws when they are not explicitly included in the CCWG draft. I am also opposed procedurally. On the Board removal of directors discussion, we were told that even though legally the EC had to approve the removals, that the CCWG draft was silent of this, so we could not create a new power for the EC that would infringe on Board powers in the current bylaws. Therefor the approval had to be a rubber stamp. Here, the CCWG proposal is silent on whether the GAC should have a vote on removing NOMCOM directors. The current bylaws specifically do not give the GAC any vote on the approval or removal of NOMCOM directors. But we are told that we must grant them such authority even though there is no legal requirement for it as we know from the power of individual SO/AC to remove their appointed directors. How are these two interpretations consistent? Either we add new powers for the EC on Board decisions to remove directors or we do not add new powers for the GAC on removing NOMCOM directors. Best, Brett ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:54 AM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7 Forwarding also our lawyer’s clarification on Q29 (please note that the clarification on Q7 is redundant with the previous email). Best Mathieu De : bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Rosemary E. Fei via bylaws-coord Envoyé : lundi 11 avril 2016 21:43 À : bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> Cc : ICANN-Adler; Daniel Halloran (daniel.halloran@icann.org<mailto:daniel.halloran@icann.org> ); Sidley ICANN CCWG ( sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>); Amy Stathos (amy.stathos@icann.org<mailto:amy.stathos@icann.org>) Objet : [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7 Dear Bylaws Coordination group: Please see attached. All three counsels have signed off on these questions from counsel. Pdf versions to follow. Rosemary and Holly _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
I agree with Jordan and Jorge. We need to be clear that we are neither expanding nor restricting the "GAC Carveout" beyond that in the Proposal. Indeed, this has nothing to do with the "GAC Carveout," which is intended to deal with "two bites at the apple" issues only. Greg [image: http://hilweb1/images/signature.jpg] *Gregory S. Shatan | Partner*McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP 245 Park Avenue, 27th Floor | New York, New York 10167 T: 212-609-6873 F: 212-416-7613 gshatan @mccarter.com | www.mccarter.com BOSTON | HARTFORD | STAMFORD | NEW YORK | NEWARK EAST BRUNSWICK | PHILADELPHIA | WILMINGTON | WASHINGTON, DC On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Schaefer, Brett < Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Alan,
The IETF has never expressed any interest in participating in the EC nor was it discussed to any extent that I can recall. That is not the case with the GAC.
Best,
Brett
------------------------------ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org
*From:* Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] *Sent:* Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:25 AM *To:* Schaefer, Brett; Mathieu Weill; Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
The CCWG was NOT silent. It said that the EC had the power and the GAC is defined as part of the EC.
That notwithstanding, if the removal power were granted solely to those who vote for the selection of NomCom appointees, then the IETF would have to be part of the decisional group that removes NomCom appointed directors. Something that was never even raised.
Alan
At 12/04/2016 08:06 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
Co-chairs,
I am opposed to this decision on Q29 for several reasons:
1. The GAC does not vote for NOMCOM directors, and should not have a vote in their removal. 2. It is inconsistent with how the CCWG draft treats individual SO/ACs with respect to their appointed directors. The SO/ACs voting on NOMCOM directors should have similar exclusive authority over their removal. 3. The CCWG proposal is silent on this matter, we should not be inserting new powers for the GAC into the bylaws when they are not explicitly included in the CCWG draft.
I am also opposed procedurally.
On the Board removal of directors discussion, we were told that even though legally the EC had to approve the removals, that the CCWG draft was silent of this, so we could not create a new power for the EC that would infringe on Board powers in the current bylaws. Therefor the approval had to be a rubber stamp.
Here, the CCWG proposal is silent on whether the GAC should have a vote on removing NOMCOM directors. The current bylaws specifically do not give the GAC any vote on the approval or removal of NOMCOM directors. But we are told that we must grant them such authority even though there is no legal requirement for it as we know from the power of individual SO/AC to remove their appointed directors.
How are these two interpretations consistent? Either we add new powers for the EC on Board decisions to remove directors or we do not add new powers for the GAC on removing NOMCOM directors.
Best,
Brett
------------------------------
Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mathieu Weill *Sent:* Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:54 AM *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
Forwarding also our lawyer’s clarification on Q29 (please note that the clarification on Q7 is redundant with the previous email).
Best Mathieu
*De :* bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org <bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org>] *De la part de* Rosemary E. Fei via bylaws-coord *Envoyé :* lundi 11 avril 2016 21:43 *À :* bylaws-coord@icann.org *Cc :* ICANN-Adler; Daniel Halloran (daniel.halloran@icann.org ); Sidley ICANN CCWG ( sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com); Amy Stathos ( amy.stathos@icann.org) *Objet :* [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
Dear Bylaws Coordination group:
Please see attached. All three counsels have signed off on these questions from counsel. Pdf versions to follow.
Rosemary and Holly
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Mr Satan 'Whenever ,there is no apple, the issue you have raised "Indeed, this has nothing to do with the "GAC Carve out," which is intended to deal with "two bites at the apple" issues only"is senseless. For Approval of Bylaws GAC like other constituency has the power to exercise its rights .There is no first bit that prohibit GAC to participate in exercising that power( the first and the last bit) You totally misunderstood the process because of your antigac sentiment which blut as soon as any thing reklating to GAC comes to the discussion. Your supported in part of the private scooter have the same wrong impression. Read the Carve-out in recs. 1 and 2 .Approval of ICANN CHANGES TO THE FUNDAMENTAL bylaws was not based on any advice or recommendation from any SO/AC. Because you are mo concentrated on one single thought in the world and ignoring other wide aspects of the legal terms you make such a wrong interpretations . 2016-04-12 15:37 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
I agree with Jordan and Jorge. We need to be clear that we are neither expanding nor restricting the "GAC Carveout" beyond that in the Proposal. Indeed, this has nothing to do with the "GAC Carveout," which is intended to deal with "two bites at the apple" issues only.
Greg
[image: http://hilweb1/images/signature.jpg]
*Gregory S. Shatan | Partner*McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
245 Park Avenue, 27th Floor | New York, New York 10167 T: 212-609-6873 F: 212-416-7613 gshatan @mccarter.com | www.mccarter.com
BOSTON | HARTFORD | STAMFORD | NEW YORK | NEWARK EAST BRUNSWICK | PHILADELPHIA | WILMINGTON | WASHINGTON, DC
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Schaefer, Brett < Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Alan,
The IETF has never expressed any interest in participating in the EC nor was it discussed to any extent that I can recall. That is not the case with the GAC.
Best,
Brett
------------------------------ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org
*From:* Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] *Sent:* Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:25 AM *To:* Schaefer, Brett; Mathieu Weill; Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
The CCWG was NOT silent. It said that the EC had the power and the GAC is defined as part of the EC.
That notwithstanding, if the removal power were granted solely to those who vote for the selection of NomCom appointees, then the IETF would have to be part of the decisional group that removes NomCom appointed directors. Something that was never even raised.
Alan
At 12/04/2016 08:06 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
Co-chairs,
I am opposed to this decision on Q29 for several reasons:
1. The GAC does not vote for NOMCOM directors, and should not have a vote in their removal. 2. It is inconsistent with how the CCWG draft treats individual SO/ACs with respect to their appointed directors. The SO/ACs voting on NOMCOM directors should have similar exclusive authority over their removal. 3. The CCWG proposal is silent on this matter, we should not be inserting new powers for the GAC into the bylaws when they are not explicitly included in the CCWG draft.
I am also opposed procedurally.
On the Board removal of directors discussion, we were told that even though legally the EC had to approve the removals, that the CCWG draft was silent of this, so we could not create a new power for the EC that would infringe on Board powers in the current bylaws. Therefor the approval had to be a rubber stamp.
Here, the CCWG proposal is silent on whether the GAC should have a vote on removing NOMCOM directors. The current bylaws specifically do not give the GAC any vote on the approval or removal of NOMCOM directors. But we are told that we must grant them such authority even though there is no legal requirement for it as we know from the power of individual SO/AC to remove their appointed directors.
How are these two interpretations consistent? Either we add new powers for the EC on Board decisions to remove directors or we do not add new powers for the GAC on removing NOMCOM directors.
Best,
Brett
------------------------------
Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mathieu Weill *Sent:* Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:54 AM *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
Forwarding also our lawyer’s clarification on Q29 (please note that the clarification on Q7 is redundant with the previous email).
Best Mathieu
*De :* bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org <bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org>] *De la part de* Rosemary E. Fei via bylaws-coord *Envoyé :* lundi 11 avril 2016 21:43 *À :* bylaws-coord@icann.org *Cc :* ICANN-Adler; Daniel Halloran (daniel.halloran@icann.org ); Sidley ICANN CCWG ( sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com); Amy Stathos ( amy.stathos@icann.org) *Objet :* [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
Dear Bylaws Coordination group:
Please see attached. All three counsels have signed off on these questions from counsel. Pdf versions to follow.
Rosemary and Holly
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Kavouss, I might be mistaken but my reading of Mr. Shatan’s comments is that he actually supports what you’ve been saying. In any case I believe your disagreement could be with the comments made by Mr. Schaeffer. Also, let’s not allow passion to heat the discussion and avoid qualifying others contributions as “wrong” or otherwise. Best regards, León
El 12/04/2016, a las 8:49 a.m., Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> escribió:
Dear Mr Satan 'Whenever ,there is no apple, the issue you have raised "Indeed, this has nothing to do with the "GAC Carve out," which is intended to deal with "two bites at the apple" issues only"is senseless. For Approval of Bylaws GAC like other constituency has the power to exercise its rights .There is no first bit that prohibit GAC to participate in exercising that power( the first and the last bit) You totally misunderstood the process because of your antigac sentiment which blut as soon as any thing reklating to GAC comes to the discussion. Your supported in part of the private scooter have the same wrong impression. Read the Carve-out in recs. 1 and 2 .Approval of ICANN CHANGES TO THE FUNDAMENTAL bylaws was not based on any advice or recommendation from any SO/AC. Because you are mo concentrated on one single thought in the world and ignoring other wide aspects of the legal terms you make such a wrong interpretations
.
2016-04-12 15:37 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>: I agree with Jordan and Jorge. We need to be clear that we are neither expanding nor restricting the "GAC Carveout" beyond that in the Proposal. Indeed, this has nothing to do with the "GAC Carveout," which is intended to deal with "two bites at the apple" issues only.
Greg
<image001.jpg>
Gregory S. Shatan | Partner McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
245 Park Avenue, 27th Floor | New York, New York 10167 T: 212-609-6873 <tel:212-609-6873> F: 212-416-7613 <tel:212-416-7613> gshatan @mccarter.com <mailto:gshatan%20@mccarter.com> | www.mccarter.com <http://www.mccarter.com/>
BOSTON | HARTFORD | STAMFORD | NEW YORK | NEWARK EAST BRUNSWICK | PHILADELPHIA | WILMINGTON | WASHINGTON, DC
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote:
Alan,
The IETF has never expressed any interest in participating in the EC nor was it discussed to any extent that I can recall. That is not the case with the GAC.
Best,
Brett
Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 <tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:25 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; Mathieu Weill; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
The CCWG was NOT silent. It said that the EC had the power and the GAC is defined as part of the EC.
That notwithstanding, if the removal power were granted solely to those who vote for the selection of NomCom appointees, then the IETF would have to be part of the decisional group that removes NomCom appointed directors. Something that was never even raised.
Alan
At 12/04/2016 08:06 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
Co-chairs,
I am opposed to this decision on Q29 for several reasons:
The GAC does not vote for NOMCOM directors, and should not have a vote in their removal. It is inconsistent with how the CCWG draft treats individual SO/ACs with respect to their appointed directors. The SO/ACs voting on NOMCOM directors should have similar exclusive authority over their removal. The CCWG proposal is silent on this matter, we should not be inserting new powers for the GAC into the bylaws when they are not explicitly included in the CCWG draft.
I am also opposed procedurally.
On the Board removal of directors discussion, we were told that even though legally the EC had to approve the removals, that the CCWG draft was silent of this, so we could not create a new power for the EC that would infringe on Board powers in the current bylaws. Therefor the approval had to be a rubber stamp.
Here, the CCWG proposal is silent on whether the GAC should have a vote on removing NOMCOM directors. The current bylaws specifically do not give the GAC any vote on the approval or removal of NOMCOM directors. But we are told that we must grant them such authority even though there is no legal requirement for it as we know from the power of individual SO/AC to remove their appointed directors.
How are these two interpretations consistent? Either we add new powers for the EC on Board decisions to remove directors or we do not add new powers for the GAC on removing NOMCOM directors.
Best,
Brett
Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 <tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:54 AM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
Forwarding also our lawyer’s clarification on Q29 (please note that the clarification on Q7 is redundant with the previous email).
Best Mathieu
De : bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org>] De la part de Rosemary E. Fei via bylaws-coord Envoyé : lundi 11 avril 2016 21:43 À : bylaws-coord@icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> Cc : ICANN-Adler; Daniel Halloran (daniel.halloran@icann.org <mailto:daniel.halloran@icann.org> ); Sidley ICANN CCWG ( sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>); Amy Stathos (amy.stathos@icann.org <mailto:amy.stathos@icann.org>) Objet : [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
Dear Bylaws Coordination group:
Please see attached. All three counsels have signed off on these questions from counsel. Pdf versions to follow.
Rosemary and Holly
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On a very very light note, people make mistake in spelling my name which usually has no serious implication(at least non that I know of), but there are some names that missing just a character in it could make a different meaning with all its implications. I encourage us to please take some time in spelling our names correctly ;-) Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 12 Apr 2016 14:57, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear Kavouss,
I might be mistaken but my reading of Mr. Shatan’s comments is that he actually supports what you’ve been saying. In any case I believe your disagreement could be with the comments made by Mr. Schaeffer.
Also, let’s not allow passion to heat the discussion and avoid qualifying others contributions as “wrong” or otherwise.
Best regards,
León
El 12/04/2016, a las 8:49 a.m., Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> escribió:
Dear Mr Satan 'Whenever ,there is no apple, the issue you have raised "Indeed, this has nothing to do with the "GAC Carve out," which is intended to deal with "two bites at the apple" issues only"is senseless. For Approval of Bylaws GAC like other constituency has the power to exercise its rights .There is no first bit that prohibit GAC to participate in exercising that power( the first and the last bit) You totally misunderstood the process because of your antigac sentiment which blut as soon as any thing reklating to GAC comes to the discussion. Your supported in part of the private scooter have the same wrong impression. Read the Carve-out in recs. 1 and 2 .Approval of ICANN CHANGES TO THE FUNDAMENTAL bylaws was not based on any advice or recommendation from any SO/AC. Because you are mo concentrated on one single thought in the world and ignoring other wide aspects of the legal terms you make such a wrong interpretations
.
2016-04-12 15:37 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
I agree with Jordan and Jorge. We need to be clear that we are neither expanding nor restricting the "GAC Carveout" beyond that in the Proposal. Indeed, this has nothing to do with the "GAC Carveout," which is intended to deal with "two bites at the apple" issues only.
Greg
<image001.jpg>
*Gregory S. Shatan | Partner*McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
245 Park Avenue, 27th Floor | New York, New York 10167 T: 212-609-6873 F: 212-416-7613 gshatan @mccarter.com | www.mccarter.com
BOSTON | HARTFORD | STAMFORD | NEW YORK | NEWARK EAST BRUNSWICK | PHILADELPHIA | WILMINGTON | WASHINGTON, DC
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Schaefer, Brett < Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Alan,
The IETF has never expressed any interest in participating in the EC nor was it discussed to any extent that I can recall. That is not the case with the GAC.
Best,
Brett
------------------------------ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org
*From:* Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] *Sent:* Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:25 AM *To:* Schaefer, Brett; Mathieu Weill; Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
The CCWG was NOT silent. It said that the EC had the power and the GAC is defined as part of the EC.
That notwithstanding, if the removal power were granted solely to those who vote for the selection of NomCom appointees, then the IETF would have to be part of the decisional group that removes NomCom appointed directors. Something that was never even raised.
Alan
At 12/04/2016 08:06 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
Co-chairs,
I am opposed to this decision on Q29 for several reasons:
1. The GAC does not vote for NOMCOM directors, and should not have a vote in their removal. 2. It is inconsistent with how the CCWG draft treats individual SO/ACs with respect to their appointed directors. The SO/ACs voting on NOMCOM directors should have similar exclusive authority over their removal. 3. The CCWG proposal is silent on this matter, we should not be inserting new powers for the GAC into the bylaws when they are not explicitly included in the CCWG draft.
I am also opposed procedurally.
On the Board removal of directors discussion, we were told that even though legally the EC had to approve the removals, that the CCWG draft was silent of this, so we could not create a new power for the EC that would infringe on Board powers in the current bylaws. Therefor the approval had to be a rubber stamp.
Here, the CCWG proposal is silent on whether the GAC should have a vote on removing NOMCOM directors. The current bylaws specifically do not give the GAC any vote on the approval or removal of NOMCOM directors. But we are told that we must grant them such authority even though there is no legal requirement for it as we know from the power of individual SO/AC to remove their appointed directors.
How are these two interpretations consistent? Either we add new powers for the EC on Board decisions to remove directors or we do not add new powers for the GAC on removing NOMCOM directors.
Best,
Brett
------------------------------
Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mathieu Weill *Sent:* Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:54 AM *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
Forwarding also our lawyer’s clarification on Q29 (please note that the clarification on Q7 is redundant with the previous email).
Best Mathieu
*De :* bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org <bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org>] *De la part de* Rosemary E. Fei via bylaws-coord *Envoyé :* lundi 11 avril 2016 21:43 *À :* bylaws-coord@icann.org *Cc :* ICANN-Adler; Daniel Halloran (daniel.halloran@icann.org ); Sidley ICANN CCWG ( sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com); Amy Stathos ( amy.stathos@icann.org) *Objet :* [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
Dear Bylaws Coordination group:
Please see attached. All three counsels have signed off on these questions from counsel. Pdf versions to follow.
Rosemary and Holly
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
This does not have anything to do with the carve-out. The Chairs misinterpreted the lawyer’s original query. This has to do with whether the GAC should be granted a voting in removing NOMCOM directors when: (1) it is not legally required; (2) they do not currently have a vote on appointing them in the bylaws; and (3) the CCWG proposal does not specifically address this issue and it was not specifically debated in the CCWG. From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 9:38 AM To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: Alan Greenberg; Mathieu Weill; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7 I agree with Jordan and Jorge. We need to be clear that we are neither expanding nor restricting the "GAC Carveout" beyond that in the Proposal. Indeed, this has nothing to do with the "GAC Carveout," which is intended to deal with "two bites at the apple" issues only. Greg [http://hilweb1/images/signature.jpg] Gregory S. Shatan | Partner McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP 245 Park Avenue, 27th Floor | New York, New York 10167 T: 212-609-6873<tel:212-609-6873> F: 212-416-7613<tel:212-416-7613> gshatan @mccarter.com<mailto:gshatan%20@mccarter.com> | www.mccarter.com<http://www.mccarter.com/> BOSTON | HARTFORD | STAMFORD | NEW YORK | NEWARK EAST BRUNSWICK | PHILADELPHIA | WILMINGTON | WASHINGTON, DC On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: Alan, The IETF has never expressed any interest in participating in the EC nor was it discussed to any extent that I can recall. That is not the case with the GAC. Best, Brett ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097<tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:25 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; Mathieu Weill; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7 The CCWG was NOT silent. It said that the EC had the power and the GAC is defined as part of the EC. That notwithstanding, if the removal power were granted solely to those who vote for the selection of NomCom appointees, then the IETF would have to be part of the decisional group that removes NomCom appointed directors. Something that was never even raised. Alan At 12/04/2016 08:06 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote: Co-chairs, I am opposed to this decision on Q29 for several reasons: 1. The GAC does not vote for NOMCOM directors, and should not have a vote in their removal. 2. It is inconsistent with how the CCWG draft treats individual SO/ACs with respect to their appointed directors. The SO/ACs voting on NOMCOM directors should have similar exclusive authority over their removal. 3. The CCWG proposal is silent on this matter, we should not be inserting new powers for the GAC into the bylaws when they are not explicitly included in the CCWG draft. I am also opposed procedurally. On the Board removal of directors discussion, we were told that even though legally the EC had to approve the removals, that the CCWG draft was silent of this, so we could not create a new power for the EC that would infringe on Board powers in the current bylaws. Therefor the approval had to be a rubber stamp. Here, the CCWG proposal is silent on whether the GAC should have a vote on removing NOMCOM directors. The current bylaws specifically do not give the GAC any vote on the approval or removal of NOMCOM directors. But we are told that we must grant them such authority even though there is no legal requirement for it as we know from the power of individual SO/AC to remove their appointed directors. How are these two interpretations consistent? Either we add new powers for the EC on Board decisions to remove directors or we do not add new powers for the GAC on removing NOMCOM directors. Best, Brett ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097<tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:54 AM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7 Forwarding also our lawyer’s clarification on Q29 (please note that the clarification on Q7 is redundant with the previous email). Best Mathieu De : bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Rosemary E. Fei via bylaws-coord Envoyé : lundi 11 avril 2016 21:43 À : bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> Cc : ICANN-Adler; Daniel Halloran (daniel.halloran@icann.org<mailto:daniel.halloran@icann.org> ); Sidley ICANN CCWG ( sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>); Amy Stathos (amy.stathos@icann.org<mailto:amy.stathos@icann.org>) Objet : [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7 Dear Bylaws Coordination group: Please see attached. All three counsels have signed off on these questions from counsel. Pdf versions to follow. Rosemary and Holly _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
What hostility with GAC? Sent from my iPhone
On 12 Apr 2016, at 14:30, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Alan,
The IETF has never expressed any interest in participating in the EC nor was it discussed to any extent that I can recall. That is not the case with the GAC.
Best,
Brett
Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:25 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; Mathieu Weill; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
The CCWG was NOT silent. It said that the EC had the power and the GAC is defined as part of the EC.
That notwithstanding, if the removal power were granted solely to those who vote for the selection of NomCom appointees, then the IETF would have to be part of the decisional group that removes NomCom appointed directors. Something that was never even raised.
Alan
At 12/04/2016 08:06 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
Co-chairs,
I am opposed to this decision on Q29 for several reasons:
The GAC does not vote for NOMCOM directors, and should not have a vote in their removal. It is inconsistent with how the CCWG draft treats individual SO/ACs with respect to their appointed directors. The SO/ACs voting on NOMCOM directors should have similar exclusive authority over their removal. The CCWG proposal is silent on this matter, we should not be inserting new powers for the GAC into the bylaws when they are not explicitly included in the CCWG draft.
I am also opposed procedurally.
On the Board removal of directors discussion, we were told that even though legally the EC had to approve the removals, that the CCWG draft was silent of this, so we could not create a new power for the EC that would infringe on Board powers in the current bylaws. Therefor the approval had to be a rubber stamp.
Here, the CCWG proposal is silent on whether the GAC should have a vote on removing NOMCOM directors. The current bylaws specifically do not give the GAC any vote on the approval or removal of NOMCOM directors. But we are told that we must grant them such authority even though there is no legal requirement for it as we know from the power of individual SO/AC to remove their appointed directors.
How are these two interpretations consistent? Either we add new powers for the EC on Board decisions to remove directors or we do not add new powers for the GAC on removing NOMCOM directors.
Best,
Brett
Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:54 AM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
Forwarding also our lawyer’s clarification on Q29 (please note that the clarification on Q7 is redundant with the previous email).
Best Mathieu
De : bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Rosemary E. Fei via bylaws-coord Envoyé : lundi 11 avril 2016 21:43 À : bylaws-coord@icann.org Cc : ICANN-Adler; Daniel Halloran (daniel.halloran@icann.org ); Sidley ICANN CCWG ( sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com); Amy Stathos (amy.stathos@icann.org) Objet : [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
Dear Bylaws Coordination group:
Please see attached. All three counsels have signed off on these questions from counsel. Pdf versions to follow.
Rosemary and Holly
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Greg Shatan -
Kavouss Arasteh -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Schaefer, Brett -
Seun Ojedeji