TR: Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A)
Dear Colleagues, As a follow up from the call yesterday, please find below a note from our lawyers regarding one of the points we discussed. This is related to the requirement to provide rationale when initiating a community power escalation process. Best, Mathieu _____ From: Grapsas, Rebecca Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 05:24:00 PM To: Gregory, Holly Subject: Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) Dear Co-Chairs, On today’s CCWG call, a concern was raised regarding the requirement to provide “specific rationales” in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) (pasted below). As discussed below, this provision is consistent with the CCWG Proposal. As I noted in the chat during today’s call, the general requirement for the Petitioning Decisional Participant to provide a rationale for the rejection petition (i.e., the first part of (A), highlighted in yellow) was included to reflect Annex 2, Paragraph 32 (first bullet, first sub-bullet)), which provides that “Within 24 hours of a petition being approved, the petitioning Decisional Participant will: Circulate a detailed rationale for proposing to use the Community Power to all Decisional Participants. Any SO or AC may contribute preliminary thoughts or questions in writing via a specific publicly archived email list set up for this specific issue….” The language in (A) highlighted in green was included to reflect Annex 4, Paragraphs 12 and 14: · Paragraph 12: “The CCWG-Accountability has determined that a separate petition would be required for each budget or strategic/operating plan being challenged. A budget or strategic/operating plan could only be challenged if there are significant issue(s) brought up in the engagement process that were not addressed prior to approval.” · Paragraph 14: “A community decision to reject a budget or a plan after it has been approved by the ICANN Board will be based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community. The veto could only concern issues that had been raised in the public consultations conducted before the Board approved the budget or plan.” Given that a budget or plan can only be rejected based on “perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community”, the Bylaw was drafted to limit the ability to escalate rejection of a budget or plan to situations where the rationale includes one or more of those specified items. Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A): (c) A Decisional Participant that has received a Rejection Action Petition shall either accept or reject such Rejection Action Petition; provided that a Decisional Participant may only accept such Rejection Action Petition if it was received by such Decisional Participant during the Rejection Action Petition Period. (i) If, in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.2(c) of this Annex D, a Decisional Participant accepts a Rejection Action Petition during the Rejection Action Petition Period, the Decisional Participant shall promptly provide to the EC Administration, the other Decisional Participants and the Secretary written notice (“Rejection Action Petition Notice”) of such acceptance (such Decisional Participant, the “Rejection Action Petitioning Decisional Participant”), and ICANN shall promptly post such Rejection Action Petition Notice on the Website. The Rejection Action Petition Notice shall also include: (A) the rationale upon which rejection of the Rejection Action is sought. Where the Rejection Action Petition Notice relates to an ICANN Budget, an IANA Budget, an Operating Plan or a Strategic Plan, the Rejection Action Petition Notice shall not be valid and shall not be accepted by the EC Administration unless the rationale set forth in the Rejection Action Petition Notice is based on one or more significant issues that were specifically raised in the applicable public comment period(s) relating to perceived inconsistencies with the Mission, purpose and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN’s stakeholders, financial stability, or other matter of concern to the community; Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) as included in the April 20 draft of the Bylaws is consistent with the CCWG Proposal. Best regards, Holly HOLLY J. GREGORY Partner and Co-Chair Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Group Sidley Austin LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com/> www.sidley.com **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************
On 04/05/2016 07:43, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As a follow up from the call yesterday, please find below a note from our lawyers regarding one of the points we discussed. This is related to the requirement to provide rationale when initiating a community power escalation process.
*From:*Grapsas, Rebecca *Sent:* Tuesday, May 03, 2016 05:24:00 PM *To:* Gregory, Holly *Subject:* Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A)
(A) the rationale upon which rejection of the Rejection Action is sought. Where the Rejection Action Petition Notice relates to an ICANN Budget, an IANA Budget, an Operating Plan or a Strategic Plan, the Rejection Action Petition Notice shall not be valid and shall not be accepted by the EC Administration unless the rationale set forth in the Rejection Action Petition Notice is based on one or more significant issues that were specifically raised in the applicable public comment period(s) relating to perceived inconsistencies with the Mission, purpose and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN’s stakeholders, financial stability, or other matter of concern to the community;
So the Empowered Community will not be able to reject the Budget, Operating Plan or Strategic Plan unless per a rationale identified in the Public Comment period for that budget/plan? What if the reason for rejecting the budget/plan is that ICANN failed to hold a public comment period? -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 01:26:36PM +0100, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
What if the reason for rejecting the budget/plan is that ICANN failed to hold a public comment period?
That seems like it'd be a pretty good rationale to me. No? A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 01:26:36PM +0100, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
What if the reason for rejecting the budget/plan is that ICANN failed to hold a public comment period?
That seems like it'd be a pretty good rationale to me. No?
Yes it is but there would have been no opportunity to submit it to public comment. I guess that was the point Malcom was trying to make (unless i missed his point)
Cheers!
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 02:12:02PM +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Yes it is but there would have been no opportunity to submit it to public comment. I guess that was the point Malcom was trying to make (unless i missed his point)
The Empowered Community has ways of coping with such misbehaviour anyway. I do not believe that completely specifying the rules for every case that we can think of will work, because we'll forget to specify some case. In general, the EC can remove any Board member or the entire Board, and if we actually have the problem of the Board doing things like adopting budgets without reflecting the community's desires, then regardless of the procedural ceremonies the Board is going to get removed. On the other hand, if the Board and community are in tight alignment, nobody will care very much about the ceremonial details. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Malcolm raises a fair question, but I would apply it more generally. The current bylaw stipulates that the EC can’t reject to the ICANN Budget, an IANA Budget, an Operating Plan or a Strategic Plan except in the specified circumstances. I acknowledge that the listed criteria cover the most likely reasons for a rejection petition and the final clause (“or other matter of concern to the community”) is rather open ended. But on principle I think the EC should be able to reject those budgets and plans for any reason as long as they provide a rationale. If the rationale is weak or caters to the concerns of a small slice of the ICANN community, it won’t receive sufficient support from the EC to pass the threshold. If it passes the EC rejection threshold, then I think that alone would demonstrates that the rationale has merit regardless of its basis and should lead the Board to reconsider. ________________________________ 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] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 8:27 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) On 04/05/2016 07:43, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As a follow up from the call yesterday, please find below a note from our lawyers regarding one of the points we discussed. This is related to the requirement to provide rationale when initiating a community power escalation process.
*From:*Grapsas, Rebecca *Sent:* Tuesday, May 03, 2016 05:24:00 PM *To:* Gregory, Holly *Subject:* Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A)
(A) the rationale upon which rejection of the Rejection Action is sought. Where the Rejection Action Petition Notice relates to an ICANN Budget, an IANA Budget, an Operating Plan or a Strategic Plan, the Rejection Action Petition Notice shall not be valid and shall not be accepted by the EC Administration unless the rationale set forth in the Rejection Action Petition Notice is based on one or more significant issues that were specifically raised in the applicable public comment period(s) relating to perceived inconsistencies with the Mission, purpose and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN’s stakeholders, financial stability, or other matter of concern to the community;
So the Empowered Community will not be able to reject the Budget, Operating Plan or Strategic Plan unless per a rationale identified in the Public Comment period for that budget/plan? What if the reason for rejecting the budget/plan is that ICANN failed to hold a public comment period? -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/<http://publicaffairs.linx.net/> London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA _______________________________________________ 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>
Dear All, Did we specifically agreed in CCWG the need for a)" rationale" And b) indoor the conditions that such rationale is based on "one or more significant issues raised during the public comment"? May you refresh our mind by citing the corresponding paragraph in CCWG REC. Moreover, if such issue is not raised during the public comment no action could be taken to reject ..,., Is this is not intended to reduce , diminish or make it impossible for any entity to proceed with a petition in that regard? May you further clarify the matter Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 4 May 2016, at 08:43, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As a follow up from the call yesterday, please find below a note from our lawyers regarding one of the points we discussed. This is related to the requirement to provide rationale when initiating a community power escalation process.
Best, Mathieu
From: Grapsas, Rebecca Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 05:24:00 PM To: Gregory, Holly Subject: Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A)
Dear Co-Chairs, On today’s CCWG call, a concern was raised regarding the requirement to provide “specific rationales” in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) (pasted below). As discussed below, this provision is consistent with the CCWG Proposal. As I noted in the chat during today’s call, the general requirement for the Petitioning Decisional Participant to provide a rationale for the rejection petition (i.e., the first part of (A), highlighted in yellow) was included to reflect Annex 2, Paragraph 32 (first bullet, first sub-bullet)), which provides that “Within 24 hours of a petition being approved, the petitioning Decisional Participant will: Circulate a detailed rationale for proposing to use the Community Power to all Decisional Participants. Any SO or AC may contribute preliminary thoughts or questions in writing via a specific publicly archived email list set up for this specific issue….”
The language in (A) highlighted in green was included to reflect Annex 4, Paragraphs 12 and 14: · Paragraph 12: “The CCWG-Accountability has determined that a separate petition would be required for each budget or strategic/operating plan being challenged. A budget or strategic/operating plan could only be challenged if there are significant issue(s) brought up in the engagement process that were not addressed prior to approval.”
· Paragraph 14: “A community decision to reject a budget or a plan after it has been approved by the ICANN Board will be based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community. The veto could only concern issues that had been raised in the public consultations conducted before the Board approved the budget or plan.”
Given that a budget or plan can only be rejected based on “perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community”, the Bylaw was drafted to limit the ability to escalate rejection of a budget or plan to situations where the rationale includes one or more of those specified items.
Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A):
(c) A Decisional Participant that has received a Rejection Action Petition shall either accept or reject such Rejection Action Petition; provided that a Decisional Participant may only accept such Rejection Action Petition if it was received by such Decisional Participant during the Rejection Action Petition Period. (i) If, in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.2(c) of this Annex D, a Decisional Participant accepts a Rejection Action Petition during the Rejection Action Petition Period, the Decisional Participant shall promptly provide to the EC Administration, the other Decisional Participants and the Secretary written notice (“Rejection Action Petition Notice”) of such acceptance (such Decisional Participant, the “Rejection Action Petitioning Decisional Participant”), and ICANN shall promptly post such Rejection Action Petition Notice on the Website. The Rejection Action Petition Notice shall also include: (A) the rationale upon which rejection of the Rejection Action is sought. Where the Rejection Action Petition Notice relates to an ICANN Budget, an IANA Budget, an Operating Plan or a Strategic Plan, the Rejection Action Petition Notice shall not be valid and shall not be accepted by the EC Administration unless the rationale set forth in the Rejection Action Petition Notice is based on one or more significant issues that were specifically raised in the applicable public comment period(s) relating to perceived inconsistencies with the Mission, purpose and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN’s stakeholders, financial stability, or other matter of concern to the community; Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) as included in the April 20 draft of the Bylaws is consistent with the CCWG Proposal. Best regards, Holly
HOLLY J. GREGORY Partner and Co-Chair Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Group Sidley Austin LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com www.sidley.com
**************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Colleagues, Paragraph 14 of Annex 4 of our supplemental report states : A community decision to reject a budget or a plan after it has been approved by the ICANN Board will be based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community. The veto could only concern issues that had been raised in the public consultations conducted before the Board approved the budget or plan. (emphasis added) I believe our lawyers have been diligent in ensuring this requirement is taken into account. Best, Mathieu De : Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 4 mai 2016 15:25 À : Mathieu Weill Cc : <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) Dear All, Did we specifically agreed in CCWG the need for a)" rationale" And b) indoor the conditions that such rationale is based on "one or more significant issues raised during the public comment"? May you refresh our mind by citing the corresponding paragraph in CCWG REC. Moreover, if such issue is not raised during the public comment no action could be taken to reject ..,., Is this is not intended to reduce , diminish or make it impossible for any entity to proceed with a petition in that regard? May you further clarify the matter Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 4 May 2016, at 08:43, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote: Dear Colleagues, As a follow up from the call yesterday, please find below a note from our lawyers regarding one of the points we discussed. This is related to the requirement to provide rationale when initiating a community power escalation process. Best, Mathieu _____ From: Grapsas, Rebecca Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 05:24:00 PM To: Gregory, Holly Subject: Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) Dear Co-Chairs, On today’s CCWG call, a concern was raised regarding the requirement to provide “specific rationales” in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) (pasted below). As discussed below, this provision is consistent with the CCWG Proposal. As I noted in the chat during today’s call, the general requirement for the Petitioning Decisional Participant to provide a rationale for the rejection petition (i.e., the first part of (A), highlighted in yellow) was included to reflect Annex 2, Paragraph 32 (first bullet, first sub-bullet)), which provides that “Within 24 hours of a petition being approved, the petitioning Decisional Participant will: Circulate a detailed rationale for proposing to use the Community Power to all Decisional Participants. Any SO or AC may contribute preliminary thoughts or questions in writing via a specific publicly archived email list set up for this specific issue….” The language in (A) highlighted in green was included to reflect Annex 4, Paragraphs 12 and 14: · Paragraph 12: “The CCWG-Accountability has determined that a separate petition would be required for each budget or strategic/operating plan being challenged. A budget or strategic/operating plan could only be challenged if there are significant issue(s) brought up in the engagement process that were not addressed prior to approval.” · Paragraph 14: “A community decision to reject a budget or a plan after it has been approved by the ICANN Board will be based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community. The veto could only concern issues that had been raised in the public consultations conducted before the Board approved the budget or plan.” Given that a budget or plan can only be rejected based on “perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community”, the Bylaw was drafted to limit the ability to escalate rejection of a budget or plan to situations where the rationale includes one or more of those specified items. Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A): (c) A Decisional Participant that has received a Rejection Action Petition shall either accept or reject such Rejection Action Petition; provided that a Decisional Participant may only accept such Rejection Action Petition if it was received by such Decisional Participant during the Rejection Action Petition Period. (i) If, in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.2(c) of this Annex D, a Decisional Participant accepts a Rejection Action Petition during the Rejection Action Petition Period, the Decisional Participant shall promptly provide to the EC Administration, the other Decisional Participants and the Secretary written notice (“Rejection Action Petition Notice”) of such acceptance (such Decisional Participant, the “Rejection Action Petitioning Decisional Participant”), and ICANN shall promptly post such Rejection Action Petition Notice on the Website. The Rejection Action Petition Notice shall also include: (A) the rationale upon which rejection of the Rejection Action is sought. Where the Rejection Action Petition Notice relates to an ICANN Budget, an IANA Budget, an Operating Plan or a Strategic Plan, the Rejection Action Petition Notice shall not be valid and shall not be accepted by the EC Administration unless the rationale set forth in the Rejection Action Petition Notice is based on one or more significant issues that were specifically raised in the applicable public comment period(s) relating to perceived inconsistencies with the Mission, purpose and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN’s stakeholders, financial stability, or other matter of concern to the community; Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) as included in the April 20 draft of the Bylaws is consistent with the CCWG Proposal. Best regards, Holly HOLLY J. GREGORY Partner and Co-Chair Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Group Sidley Austin LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com/> www.sidley.com **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi Mathieu, Thanks for letting us know this is Infact in the spirit of the report. On that note, I will support leaving things as proposed and hope that the scenario painted by Malcolm never happens and if it does, it can only happen once, as other measures like board spilling could kick in. ;-) Cheers! Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 4 May 2016 3:47 p.m., "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Paragraph 14 of Annex 4 of our supplemental report states :
A community decision to reject a budget or a plan after it has been approved by the ICANN
Board will be based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in
ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders;
financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community. *The veto could only concern*
*issues that had been raised in the public consultations conducted before the Board approved the*
*budget or plan.*
(emphasis added)
I believe our lawyers have been diligent in ensuring this requirement is taken into account.
Best,
Mathieu
*De :* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Envoyé :* mercredi 4 mai 2016 15:25 *À :* Mathieu Weill *Cc :* <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A)
Dear All,
Did we specifically agreed in CCWG the need for a)" rationale" And b) indoor the conditions that such rationale is based on "one or more significant issues raised during the public comment"?
May you refresh our mind by citing the corresponding paragraph in CCWG REC.
Moreover, if such issue is not raised during the public comment no action could be taken to reject ..,.,
Is this is not intended to reduce , diminish or make it impossible for any entity to proceed with a petition in that regard?
May you further clarify the matter
Regards
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 4 May 2016, at 08:43, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As a follow up from the call yesterday, please find below a note from our lawyers regarding one of the points we discussed. This is related to the requirement to provide rationale when initiating a community power escalation process.
Best,
Mathieu
------------------------------
*From:* Grapsas, Rebecca *Sent:* Tuesday, May 03, 2016 05:24:00 PM *To:* Gregory, Holly *Subject:* Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A)
Dear Co-Chairs,
On today’s CCWG call, a concern was raised regarding the requirement to provide “specific rationales” in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) (pasted below). As discussed below, this provision is consistent with the CCWG Proposal.
As I noted in the chat during today’s call, the general requirement for the Petitioning Decisional Participant to provide a rationale for the rejection petition (i.e., the first part of (A), highlighted in yellow) was included to reflect Annex 2, Paragraph 32 (first bullet, first sub-bullet)), which provides that “Within 24 hours of a petition being approved, the petitioning Decisional Participant will: Circulate a detailed rationale for proposing to use the Community Power to all Decisional Participants. Any SO or AC may contribute preliminary thoughts or questions in writing via a specific publicly archived email list set up for this specific issue….”
The language in (A) highlighted in green was included to reflect Annex 4, Paragraphs 12 and 14:
· Paragraph 12: “The CCWG-Accountability has determined that a separate petition would be required for each budget or strategic/operating plan being challenged. A budget or strategic/operating plan could only be challenged if there are significant issue(s) brought up in the engagement process that were not addressed prior to approval.”
· Paragraph 14: “A community decision to reject a budget or a plan after it has been approved by the ICANN Board will be based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community. The veto could only concern issues that had been raised in the public consultations conducted before the Board approved the budget or plan.”
Given that a budget or plan can only be rejected based on “perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community”, the Bylaw was drafted to limit the ability to escalate rejection of a budget or plan to situations where the rationale includes one or more of those specified items.
*Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A):*
(c) A Decisional Participant that has received a Rejection Action Petition shall either accept or reject such Rejection Action Petition; provided that a Decisional Participant may only accept such Rejection Action Petition if it was received by such Decisional Participant during the Rejection Action Petition Period.
(i) If, in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.2(c) of this Annex D, a Decisional Participant accepts a Rejection Action Petition during the Rejection Action Petition Period, the Decisional Participant shall promptly provide to the EC Administration, the other Decisional Participants and the Secretary written notice (“Rejection Action Petition Notice”) of such acceptance (such Decisional Participant, the “Rejection Action Petitioning Decisional Participant”), and ICANN shall promptly post such Rejection Action Petition Notice on the Website. The Rejection Action Petition Notice shall also include:
(A) the rationale upon which rejection of the Rejection Action is sought. Where the Rejection Action Petition Notice relates to an ICANN Budget, an IANA Budget, an Operating Plan or a Strategic Plan, the Rejection Action Petition Notice shall not be valid and shall not be accepted by the EC Administration unless the rationale set forth in the Rejection Action Petition Notice is based on one or more significant issues that were specifically raised in the applicable public comment period(s) relating to perceived inconsistencies with the Mission, purpose and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN’s stakeholders, financial stability, or other matter of concern to the community;
Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) as included in the April 20 draft of the Bylaws is consistent with the CCWG Proposal.
Best regards,
Holly
*HOLLY* *J. GREGORY* Partner and Co-Chair Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Group
*Sidley Austin LLP* 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com www.sidley.com
**************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Mathieu, Tks for reply My question was relating to the adjective" significant" which was introduced be before" issue" and also the tone of the language used on the text" shall not be valid and shall not be accepted" Too STRONG Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 4 May 2016, at 16:46, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Paragraph 14 of Annex 4 of our supplemental report states :
A community decision to reject a budget or a plan after it has been approved by the ICANN Board will be based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community. The veto could only concern issues that had been raised in the public consultations conducted before the Board approved the budget or plan. (emphasis added)
I believe our lawyers have been diligent in ensuring this requirement is taken into account.
Best, Mathieu
De : Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 4 mai 2016 15:25 À : Mathieu Weill Cc : <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A)
Dear All, Did we specifically agreed in CCWG the need for a)" rationale" And b) indoor the conditions that such rationale is based on "one or more significant issues raised during the public comment"? May you refresh our mind by citing the corresponding paragraph in CCWG REC. Moreover, if such issue is not raised during the public comment no action could be taken to reject ..,., Is this is not intended to reduce , diminish or make it impossible for any entity to proceed with a petition in that regard? May you further clarify the matter Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 4 May 2016, at 08:43, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As a follow up from the call yesterday, please find below a note from our lawyers regarding one of the points we discussed. This is related to the requirement to provide rationale when initiating a community power escalation process.
Best, Mathieu
From: Grapsas, Rebecca Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 05:24:00 PM To: Gregory, Holly Subject: Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A)
Dear Co-Chairs, On today’s CCWG call, a concern was raised regarding the requirement to provide “specific rationales” in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) (pasted below). As discussed below, this provision is consistent with the CCWG Proposal. As I noted in the chat during today’s call, the general requirement for the Petitioning Decisional Participant to provide a rationale for the rejection petition (i.e., the first part of (A), highlighted in yellow) was included to reflect Annex 2, Paragraph 32 (first bullet, first sub-bullet)), which provides that “Within 24 hours of a petition being approved, the petitioning Decisional Participant will: Circulate a detailed rationale for proposing to use the Community Power to all Decisional Participants. Any SO or AC may contribute preliminary thoughts or questions in writing via a specific publicly archived email list set up for this specific issue….”
The language in (A) highlighted in green was included to reflect Annex 4, Paragraphs 12 and 14: · Paragraph 12: “The CCWG-Accountability has determined that a separate petition would be required for each budget or strategic/operating plan being challenged. A budget or strategic/operating plan could only be challenged if there are significant issue(s) brought up in the engagement process that were not addressed prior to approval.”
· Paragraph 14: “A community decision to reject a budget or a plan after it has been approved by the ICANN Board will be based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community. The veto could only concern issues that had been raised in the public consultations conducted before the Board approved the budget or plan.”
Given that a budget or plan can only be rejected based on “perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community”, the Bylaw was drafted to limit the ability to escalate rejection of a budget or plan to situations where the rationale includes one or more of those specified items.
Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A):
(c) A Decisional Participant that has received a Rejection Action Petition shall either accept or reject such Rejection Action Petition; provided that a Decisional Participant may only accept such Rejection Action Petition if it was received by such Decisional Participant during the Rejection Action Petition Period. (i) If, in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.2(c) of this Annex D, a Decisional Participant accepts a Rejection Action Petition during the Rejection Action Petition Period, the Decisional Participant shall promptly provide to the EC Administration, the other Decisional Participants and the Secretary written notice (“Rejection Action Petition Notice”) of such acceptance (such Decisional Participant, the “Rejection Action Petitioning Decisional Participant”), and ICANN shall promptly post such Rejection Action Petition Notice on the Website. The Rejection Action Petition Notice shall also include: (A) the rationale upon which rejection of the Rejection Action is sought. Where the Rejection Action Petition Notice relates to an ICANN Budget, an IANA Budget, an Operating Plan or a Strategic Plan, the Rejection Action Petition Notice shall not be valid and shall not be accepted by the EC Administration unless the rationale set forth in the Rejection Action Petition Notice is based on one or more significant issues that were specifically raised in the applicable public comment period(s) relating to perceived inconsistencies with the Mission, purpose and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN’s stakeholders, financial stability, or other matter of concern to the community; Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) as included in the April 20 draft of the Bylaws is consistent with the CCWG Proposal. Best regards, Holly
HOLLY J. GREGORY Partner and Co-Chair Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Group Sidley Austin LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com www.sidley.com
**************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
How would the words "significant issues" be interpreted and by whom? (From this piece of text below "Notice is based on one or more significant issues that were specifically raised in the applicable public comment period(s)" Thanks. On 5/4/2016 4:46 PM, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Paragraph 14 of Annex 4 of our supplemental report states :
A community decision to reject a budget or a plan after it has been approved by the ICANN
Board will be based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in
ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders;
financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community. *The veto could only concern*
*issues that had been raised in the public consultations conducted before the Board approved the*
*budget or plan.*
(emphasis added)
I believe our lawyers have been diligent in ensuring this requirement is taken into account.
Best,
Mathieu
*De :*Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Envoyé :* mercredi 4 mai 2016 15:25 *À :* Mathieu Weill *Cc :* <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A)
Dear All,
Did we specifically agreed in CCWG the need for a)" rationale" And b) indoor the conditions that such rationale is based on "one or more significant issues raised during the public comment"?
May you refresh our mind by citing the corresponding paragraph in CCWG REC.
Moreover, if such issue is not raised during the public comment no action could be taken to reject ..,.,
Is this is not intended to reduce , diminish or make it impossible for any entity to proceed with a petition in that regard?
May you further clarify the matter
Regards
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 4 May 2016, at 08:43, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As a follow up from the call yesterday, please find below a note from our lawyers regarding one of the points we discussed. This is related to the requirement to provide rationale when initiating a community power escalation process.
Best,
Mathieu
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:*Grapsas, Rebecca *Sent:* Tuesday, May 03, 2016 05:24:00 PM *To:* Gregory, Holly *Subject:* Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A)
Dear Co-Chairs,
On today’s CCWG call, a concern was raised regarding the requirement to provide “specific rationales” in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) (pasted below). As discussed below, this provision is consistent with the CCWG Proposal.
As I noted in the chat during today’s call, the general requirement for the Petitioning Decisional Participant to provide a rationale for the rejection petition (i.e., the first part of (A), highlighted in yellow) was included to reflect Annex 2, Paragraph 32 (first bullet, first sub-bullet)), which provides that “Within 24 hours of a petition being approved, the petitioning Decisional Participant will: Circulate a detailed rationale for proposing to use the Community Power to all Decisional Participants. Any SO or AC may contribute preliminary thoughts or questions in writing via a specific publicly archived email list set up for this specific issue….”
The language in (A) highlighted in green was included to reflect Annex 4, Paragraphs 12 and 14:
·Paragraph 12: “The CCWG-Accountability has determined that a separate petition would be required for each budget or strategic/operating plan being challenged. A budget or strategic/operating plan could only be challenged if there are significant issue(s) brought up in the engagement process that were not addressed prior to approval.”
·Paragraph 14: “A community decision to reject a budget or a plan after it has been approved by the ICANN Board will be based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community. The veto could only concern issues that had been raised in the public consultations conducted before the Board approved the budget or plan.”
Given that a budget or plan can only be rejected based on “perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community”, the Bylaw was drafted to limit the ability to escalate rejection of a budget or plan to situations where the rationale includes one or more of those specified items.
*_Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A):_*
(c) A Decisional Participant that has received a Rejection Action Petition shall either accept or reject such Rejection Action Petition; provided that a Decisional Participant may only accept such Rejection Action Petition if it was received by such Decisional Participant during the Rejection Action Petition Period.
(i) If, in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.2(c) of this Annex D, a Decisional Participant accepts a Rejection Action Petition during the Rejection Action Petition Period, the Decisional Participant shall promptly provide to the EC Administration, the other Decisional Participants and the Secretary written notice (“Rejection Action Petition Notice”) of such acceptance (such Decisional Participant, the “Rejection Action Petitioning Decisional Participant”), and ICANN shall promptly post such Rejection Action Petition Notice on the Website. The Rejection Action Petition Notice shall also include:
(A) the rationale upon which rejection of the Rejection Action is sought. Where the Rejection Action Petition Notice relates to an ICANN Budget, an IANA Budget, an Operating Plan or a Strategic Plan, the Rejection Action Petition Notice shall not be valid and shall not be accepted by the EC Administration unless the rationale set forth in the Rejection Action Petition Notice is based on one or more significant issues that were specifically raised in the applicable public comment period(s) relating to perceived inconsistencies with the Mission, purpose and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN’s stakeholders, financial stability, or other matter of concern to the community;
Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) as included in the April 20 draft of the Bylaws is consistent with the CCWG Proposal.
Best regards,
Holly
*HOLLY**J. GREGORY* Partner and Co-Chair Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Group
*Sidley Austin LLP* 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com/>
**************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
Dear All, That was exactly one if my concerns as it is envisaged that the rationale submitted for rejection be disagreed in the ground that the issue is "INSIGNIFICANT " Then the whole thing will be dropped. My second question already raised still valid Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 4 May 2016, at 16:59, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
How would the words "significant issues" be interpreted and by whom? (From this piece of text below "Notice is based on one or more significant issues that were specifically raised in the applicable public comment period(s)"
Thanks.
On 5/4/2016 4:46 PM, Mathieu Weill wrote: Dear Colleagues,
Paragraph 14 of Annex 4 of our supplemental report states :
A community decision to reject a budget or a plan after it has been approved by the ICANN Board will be based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community. The veto could only concern issues that had been raised in the public consultations conducted before the Board approved the budget or plan. (emphasis added)
I believe our lawyers have been diligent in ensuring this requirement is taken into account.
Best, Mathieu
De : Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 4 mai 2016 15:25 À : Mathieu Weill Cc : <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A)
Dear All, Did we specifically agreed in CCWG the need for a)" rationale" And b) indoor the conditions that such rationale is based on "one or more significant issues raised during the public comment"? May you refresh our mind by citing the corresponding paragraph in CCWG REC. Moreover, if such issue is not raised during the public comment no action could be taken to reject ..,., Is this is not intended to reduce , diminish or make it impossible for any entity to proceed with a petition in that regard? May you further clarify the matter Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 4 May 2016, at 08:43, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As a follow up from the call yesterday, please find below a note from our lawyers regarding one of the points we discussed. This is related to the requirement to provide rationale when initiating a community power escalation process.
Best, Mathieu
From: Grapsas, Rebecca Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 05:24:00 PM To: Gregory, Holly Subject: Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A)
Dear Co-Chairs, On today’s CCWG call, a concern was raised regarding the requirement to provide “specific rationales” in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) (pasted below). As discussed below, this provision is consistent with the CCWG Proposal. As I noted in the chat during today’s call, the general requirement for the Petitioning Decisional Participant to provide a rationale for the rejection petition (i.e., the first part of (A), highlighted in yellow) was included to reflect Annex 2, Paragraph 32 (first bullet, first sub-bullet)), which provides that “Within 24 hours of a petition being approved, the petitioning Decisional Participant will: Circulate a detailed rationale for proposing to use the Community Power to all Decisional Participants. Any SO or AC may contribute preliminary thoughts or questions in writing via a specific publicly archived email list set up for this specific issue….”
The language in (A) highlighted in green was included to reflect Annex 4, Paragraphs 12 and 14: · Paragraph 12: “The CCWG-Accountability has determined that a separate petition would be required for each budget or strategic/operating plan being challenged. A budget or strategic/operating plan could only be challenged if there are significant issue(s) brought up in the engagement process that were not addressed prior to approval.”
· Paragraph 14: “A community decision to reject a budget or a plan after it has been approved by the ICANN Board will be based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community. The veto could only concern issues that had been raised in the public consultations conducted before the Board approved the budget or plan.”
Given that a budget or plan can only be rejected based on “perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community”, the Bylaw was drafted to limit the ability to escalate rejection of a budget or plan to situations where the rationale includes one or more of those specified items.
Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A):
(c) A Decisional Participant that has received a Rejection Action Petition shall either accept or reject such Rejection Action Petition; provided that a Decisional Participant may only accept such Rejection Action Petition if it was received by such Decisional Participant during the Rejection Action Petition Period. (i) If, in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.2(c) of this Annex D, a Decisional Participant accepts a Rejection Action Petition during the Rejection Action Petition Period, the Decisional Participant shall promptly provide to the EC Administration, the other Decisional Participants and the Secretary written notice (“Rejection Action Petition Notice”) of such acceptance (such Decisional Participant, the “Rejection Action Petitioning Decisional Participant”), and ICANN shall promptly post such Rejection Action Petition Notice on the Website. The Rejection Action Petition Notice shall also include: (A) the rationale upon which rejection of the Rejection Action is sought. Where the Rejection Action Petition Notice relates to an ICANN Budget, an IANA Budget, an Operating Plan or a Strategic Plan, the Rejection Action Petition Notice shall not be valid and shall not be accepted by the EC Administration unless the rationale set forth in the Rejection Action Petition Notice is based on one or more significant issues that were specifically raised in the applicable public comment period(s) relating to perceived inconsistencies with the Mission, purpose and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN’s stakeholders, financial stability, or other matter of concern to the community; Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) as included in the April 20 draft of the Bylaws is consistent with the CCWG Proposal. Best regards, Holly
HOLLY J. GREGORY Partner and Co-Chair Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Group Sidley Austin LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com www.sidley.com
**************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I personally would not mind removing the word "significant" but I expect that the significant referred to there would be applied to any issue that the EC uses as basis for her petition[1]. Cheers! 1. Quoted from the report "..or other matters of concern to the community..." Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos How would the words "significant issues" be interpreted and by whom? (From this piece of text below "Notice is based on one or more significant issues that were specifically raised in the applicable public comment period(s)" Thanks. On 5/4/2016 4:46 PM, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Paragraph 14 of Annex 4 of our supplemental report states :
A community decision to reject a budget or a plan after it has been approved by the ICANN
Board will be based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in
ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders;
financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community.* The veto could only concern* *>* *> issues that had been raised in the public consultations conducted before the Board approved the* *>* *> budget or plan.*
(emphasis added)
I believe our lawyers have been diligent in ensuring this requirement is taken into account.
Best,
Mathieu
*>* *> De :* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] *> Envoyé :* mercredi 4 mai 2016 15:25 *> À :* Mathieu Weill *> Cc :* <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *> Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A)
Dear All,
Did we specifically agreed in CCWG the need for a)" rationale" And b) indoor the conditions that such rationale is based on "one or
more significant issues raised during the public comment"?
May you refresh our mind by citing the corresponding paragraph in CCWG
REC.
Moreover, if such issue is not raised during the public comment no action
could be taken to reject ..,.,
Is this is not intended to reduce , diminish or make it impossible for
any entity to proceed with a petition in that regard?
May you further clarify the matter
Regards
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 4 May 2016, at 08:43, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As a follow up from the call yesterday, please find below a note from
our lawyers regarding one of the points we discussed. This is related to the requirement to provide rationale when initiating a community power escalation process.
Best,
Mathieu
*>>* *>> *
________________________________
*>>* *>> From:* Grapsas, Rebecca *>> Sent:* Tuesday, May 03, 2016 05:24:00 PM *>> To:* Gregory, Holly *>> Subject:* Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A)
Dear Co-Chairs,
On today’s CCWG call, a concern was raised regarding the requirement to
provide “specific rationales” in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) (pasted below). As discussed below, this provision is consistent with the CCWG Proposal.
As I noted in the chat during today’s call, the general requirement for
the Petitioning Decisional Participant to provide a rationale for the rejection petition (i.e., the first part of (A), highlighted in yellow) was included to reflect Annex 2, Paragraph 32 (first bullet, first sub-bullet)), which provides that “Within 24 hours of a petition being approved, the petitioning Decisional Participant will: Circulate a detailed rationale for proposing to use the Community Power to all Decisional Participants. Any SO or AC may contribute preliminary thoughts or questions in writing via a specific publicly archived email list set up for this specific issue….”
The language in (A) highlighted in green was included to reflect Annex
4, Paragraphs 12 and 14:
· Paragraph 12: “The CCWG-Accountability has determined that a
separate petition would be required for each budget or strategic/operating plan being challenged. A budget or strategic/operating plan could only be challenged if there are significant issue(s) brought up in the engagement process that were not addressed prior to approval.”
· Paragraph 14: “A community decision to reject a budget or a
plan after it has been approved by the ICANN Board will be based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community. The veto could only concern issues that had been raised in the public consultations conducted before the Board approved the budget or plan.”
Given that a budget or plan can only be rejected based on “perceived
inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community”, the Bylaw was drafted to limit the ability to escalate rejection of a budget or plan to situations where the rationale includes one or more of those specified items.
*>>* *>> Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A):*
(c) A Decisional Participant that has received a Rejection Action
Petition shall either accept or reject such Rejection Action Petition; provided that a Decisional Participant may only accept such Rejection Action Petition if it was received by such Decisional Participant during the Rejection Action Petition Period.
(i) If, in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.2(c) of this
Annex D, a Decisional Participant accepts a Rejection Action Petition during the Rejection Action Petition Period, the Decisional Participant shall promptly provide to the EC Administration, the other Decisional Participants and the Secretary written notice (“Rejection Action Petition Notice”) of such acceptance (such Decisional Participant, the “Rejection Action Petitioning Decisional Participant”), and ICANN shall promptly post such Rejection Action Petition Notice on the Website. The Rejection Action Petition Notice shall also include:
(A) the rationale upon which rejection of the Rejection Action is sought.
Where the Rejection Action Petition Notice relates to an ICANN Budget, an IANA Budget, an Operating Plan or a Strategic Plan, the Rejection Action Petition Notice shall not be valid and shall not be accepted by the EC Administration unless the rationale set forth in the Rejection Action Petition Notice is based on one or more significant issues that were specifically raised in the applicable public comment period(s) relating to perceived inconsistencies with the Mission, purpose and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN’s stakeholders, financial stability, or other matter of concern to the community;
Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) as included in the April 20 draft of the
Bylaws is consistent with the CCWG Proposal.
Best regards,
Holly
*>>* *>> HOLLY* *J. GREGORY*
Partner and Co-Chair Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Group *>>* *>> Sidley Austin LLP* 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 +1 212 839 5853 <%2B1%20212%20839%205853> holly.gregory@sidley.com <holly.gregory@sidley.com> www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com/>
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<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 <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
-- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Mathieu I am thinking of the fact that , we depart more and more from what we agreed at CCWG compared with the draft submitted to us. We have apparently delegated all authorities to Legal Group to draft as they wish and when we asked question we received a strange reply that" it is a drafting technic" as we heard last night In the call 93. Where we are going? Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 4 May 2016, at 08:43, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As a follow up from the call yesterday, please find below a note from our lawyers regarding one of the points we discussed. This is related to the requirement to provide rationale when initiating a community power escalation process.
Best, Mathieu
From: Grapsas, Rebecca Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 05:24:00 PM To: Gregory, Holly Subject: Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A)
Dear Co-Chairs, On today’s CCWG call, a concern was raised regarding the requirement to provide “specific rationales” in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) (pasted below). As discussed below, this provision is consistent with the CCWG Proposal. As I noted in the chat during today’s call, the general requirement for the Petitioning Decisional Participant to provide a rationale for the rejection petition (i.e., the first part of (A), highlighted in yellow) was included to reflect Annex 2, Paragraph 32 (first bullet, first sub-bullet)), which provides that “Within 24 hours of a petition being approved, the petitioning Decisional Participant will: Circulate a detailed rationale for proposing to use the Community Power to all Decisional Participants. Any SO or AC may contribute preliminary thoughts or questions in writing via a specific publicly archived email list set up for this specific issue….”
The language in (A) highlighted in green was included to reflect Annex 4, Paragraphs 12 and 14: · Paragraph 12: “The CCWG-Accountability has determined that a separate petition would be required for each budget or strategic/operating plan being challenged. A budget or strategic/operating plan could only be challenged if there are significant issue(s) brought up in the engagement process that were not addressed prior to approval.”
· Paragraph 14: “A community decision to reject a budget or a plan after it has been approved by the ICANN Board will be based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community. The veto could only concern issues that had been raised in the public consultations conducted before the Board approved the budget or plan.”
Given that a budget or plan can only be rejected based on “perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community”, the Bylaw was drafted to limit the ability to escalate rejection of a budget or plan to situations where the rationale includes one or more of those specified items.
Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A):
(c) A Decisional Participant that has received a Rejection Action Petition shall either accept or reject such Rejection Action Petition; provided that a Decisional Participant may only accept such Rejection Action Petition if it was received by such Decisional Participant during the Rejection Action Petition Period. (i) If, in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.2(c) of this Annex D, a Decisional Participant accepts a Rejection Action Petition during the Rejection Action Petition Period, the Decisional Participant shall promptly provide to the EC Administration, the other Decisional Participants and the Secretary written notice (“Rejection Action Petition Notice”) of such acceptance (such Decisional Participant, the “Rejection Action Petitioning Decisional Participant”), and ICANN shall promptly post such Rejection Action Petition Notice on the Website. The Rejection Action Petition Notice shall also include: (A) the rationale upon which rejection of the Rejection Action is sought. Where the Rejection Action Petition Notice relates to an ICANN Budget, an IANA Budget, an Operating Plan or a Strategic Plan, the Rejection Action Petition Notice shall not be valid and shall not be accepted by the EC Administration unless the rationale set forth in the Rejection Action Petition Notice is based on one or more significant issues that were specifically raised in the applicable public comment period(s) relating to perceived inconsistencies with the Mission, purpose and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN’s stakeholders, financial stability, or other matter of concern to the community; Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) as included in the April 20 draft of the Bylaws is consistent with the CCWG Proposal. Best regards, Holly
HOLLY J. GREGORY Partner and Co-Chair Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Group Sidley Austin LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com www.sidley.com
**************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (7)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Malcolm Hutty -
Mathieu Weill -
Matthew Shears -
Schaefer, Brett -
Seun Ojedeji