CCWG-Accountability - V2.0 of comments on draft Bylaws - 24 hour Final Feedback by CCWG-Accountability
All, Please find attached V2.0 of the CCWG-Accountability comments to be submitted to the ICANN public consultation on the New Bylaws. Modifications since V1.0 was circulated (There is no red-line comparison as too many things have changed. Rather we are providing a high level summary of changes here and are providing both versions V1.0 and 2.0 for ease of comparison): - V1.0 items 9 and 10 have been removed following consideration of legal counsel advice. - 9. Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 1.4(b) - 10. Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 2.2 (c) (i) (A) - V2.0 new item 9 is - Draft Bylaws Section 1.2(b)(viii) which was in the initial comments but not included in V1.0 - V2.0 new items 10 to 14. These are a selection by the leadership from the list of issues submitted by Alan Greenberg this past weekend - 10. Draft Bylaws Section 7.12 (b) - 11. Draft Bylaws Section 4.6(b)(ii) - 12. Draft Bylaws Section 7.4(d) - 13. Draft Bylaws Section 7.11(a)(i)(B) - 14. Draft Bylaws Annex D, Section 1.4(b)(i-ii) - V2.0 New - Conclusion - short recap of Introduction The Final Feedback period is only intended to provide the CCWG-Accountability participants the opportunity to confirm there are no significant issues or gaps in this version and is not intended as an opportunity to raise new issues. The Feedback period will begin 20:00UTC today Wednesday May 11th and close 20:00UTC Thursday May 12th. Please reply to the list using the Subject line of this message to facilitate identifying your input (or simply REPLY to this email). The objective of the leadership is to finalize these and submit them before the weekend. Documents attached. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs - Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez
This version fails to take into account my comment of May 9, which I will copy and paste here for ease of reference. Simply put, the Recommendation in this draft (as in the first draft) is not what we agreed to in the meeting. It also fails to solve the problem. Please correct the Comment as set forth below in blue. Thanks! Greg There's a problem with the recommendation for Section 1.1(c). Specifically, the "Recommendation" is incorrect (based on both the "Issue" stated just above it and the call we had last week). The decision of the group was to eliminate the second clause (beginning with "and nothing..."), leaving only the first clause "For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority." The proposed Recommendation gets this almost exactly backward, deleting the first clause and leaving the second. This needs to be fixed as set forth below. Currently the section reads as follows: 1. Draft Bylaws section 1.1 (c) 1.1. Text from the Bylaws: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority, and nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that it does have authority to impose such regulations.” 1.2. Issue: The last clause of the last sentence: "nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that it does have authority to impose such regulations" Appears to create some ambiguity. 1.3. Recommendation: Remove this clause and end the sentence with "authority." The text would now read: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that ICANN does have such authority.” Instead, the Recommendation should be changed to read as follows: 1.3. Recommendation: Remove this clause and end the sentence with "authority." The text would now read: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority.” On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Bernard Turcotte < turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Please find attached V2.0 of the CCWG-Accountability comments to be submitted to the ICANN public consultation on the New Bylaws.
Modifications since V1.0 was circulated (There is no red-line comparison as too many things have changed. Rather we are providing a high level summary of changes here and are providing both versions V1.0 and 2.0 for ease of comparison):
- V1.0 items 9 and 10 have been removed following consideration of legal counsel advice. - 9. Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 1.4(b) - 10. Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 2.2 (c) (i) (A) - V2.0 new item 9 is - Draft Bylaws Section 1.2(b)(viii) which was in the initial comments but not included in V1.0 - V2.0 new items 10 to 14. These are a selection by the leadership from the list of issues submitted by Alan Greenberg this past weekend - 10. Draft Bylaws Section 7.12 (b) - 11. Draft Bylaws Section 4.6(b)(ii) -
12. Draft Bylaws Section 7.4(d) -
13. Draft Bylaws Section 7.11(a)(i)(B) -
14. Draft Bylaws Annex D, Section 1.4(b)(i-ii) - V2.0 New - Conclusion - short recap of Introduction
The Final Feedback period is only intended to provide the CCWG-Accountability participants the opportunity to confirm there are no significant issues or gaps in this version and is not intended as an opportunity to raise new issues.
The Feedback period will begin 20:00UTC today Wednesday May 11th and close 20:00UTC Thursday May 12th.
Please reply to the list using the Subject line of this message to facilitate identifying your input (or simply REPLY to this email).
The objective of the leadership is to finalize these and submit them before the weekend.
Documents attached.
Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs - Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Greg, I believe we also received a comment on this from our lawyers, and we felt safer to go with our lawyer’s version. The difference seems to be in specifically mentioning “governmentally authorized regulatory” authority. Mathieu De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Greg Shatan Envoyé : mercredi 11 mai 2016 21:02 À : Bernard Turcotte Cc : Accountability Cross Community Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - V2.0 of comments on draft Bylaws - 24 hour Final Feedback by CCWG-Accountability This version fails to take into account my comment of May 9, which I will copy and paste here for ease of reference. Simply put, the Recommendation in this draft (as in the first draft) is not what we agreed to in the meeting. It also fails to solve the problem. Please correct the Comment as set forth below in blue. Thanks! Greg There's a problem with the recommendation for Section 1.1(c). Specifically, the "Recommendation" is incorrect (based on both the "Issue" stated just above it and the call we had last week). The decision of the group was to eliminate the second clause (beginning with "and nothing..."), leaving only the first clause "For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority." The proposed Recommendation gets this almost exactly backward, deleting the first clause and leaving the second. This needs to be fixed as set forth below. Currently the section reads as follows: 1. Draft Bylaws section 1.1 (c) 1.1. Text from the Bylaws: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority, and nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that it does have authority to impose such regulations.” 1.2. Issue: The last clause of the last sentence: "nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that it does have authority to impose such regulations" Appears to create some ambiguity. 1.3. Recommendation: Remove this clause and end the sentence with "authority." The text would now read: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that ICANN does have such authority.” Instead, the Recommendation should be changed to read as follows: 1.3. Recommendation: Remove this clause and end the sentence with "authority." The text would now read: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority.” On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> wrote: All, Please find attached V2.0 of the CCWG-Accountability comments to be submitted to the ICANN public consultation on the New Bylaws. Modifications since V1.0 was circulated (There is no red-line comparison as too many things have changed. Rather we are providing a high level summary of changes here and are providing both versions V1.0 and 2.0 for ease of comparison): * V1.0 items 9 and 10 have been removed following consideration of legal counsel advice. * 9. Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 1.4(b) * 10. Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 2.2 (c) (i) (A) * V2.0 new item 9 is - Draft Bylaws Section 1.2(b)(viii) which was in the initial comments but not included in V1.0 * V2.0 new items 10 to 14. These are a selection by the leadership from the list of issues submitted by Alan Greenberg this past weekend * 10. Draft Bylaws Section 7.12 (b) * 11. Draft Bylaws Section 4.6(b)(ii) * 12. Draft Bylaws Section 7.4(d) * 13. Draft Bylaws Section 7.11(a)(i)(B) * 14. Draft Bylaws Annex D, Section 1.4(b)(i-ii) * V2.0 New - Conclusion - short recap of Introduction The Final Feedback period is only intended to provide the CCWG-Accountability participants the opportunity to confirm there are no significant issues or gaps in this version and is not intended as an opportunity to raise new issues. The Feedback period will begin 20:00UTC today Wednesday May 11th and close 20:00UTC Thursday May 12th. Please reply to the list using the Subject line of this message to facilitate identifying your input (or simply REPLY to this email). The objective of the leadership is to finalize these and submit them before the weekend. Documents attached. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs - Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Mathieu, I don't believe you are correct on this point. I looked back at the both mark-ups provided by Sidley/Adler and there was no substantive comment on this point in either draft. The fix in my email reflects the outcome of the last CCWG call. The origin of the Recommendation in the draft is obscure, and does not come from the CCWG. Furthermore, the Recommendation as drafted does not make sense. The appropriate action to take is to execute what was agreed on the call, which is what's reflected in my email. Greg On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Greg,
I believe we also received a comment on this from our lawyers, and we felt safer to go with our lawyer’s version.
The difference seems to be in specifically mentioning “governmentally authorized regulatory” authority.
Mathieu
*De :* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *De la part de* Greg Shatan *Envoyé :* mercredi 11 mai 2016 21:02 *À :* Bernard Turcotte *Cc :* Accountability Cross Community *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - V2.0 of comments on draft Bylaws - 24 hour Final Feedback by CCWG-Accountability
This version fails to take into account my comment of May 9, which I will copy and paste here for ease of reference. Simply put, the Recommendation in this draft (as in the first draft) is not what we agreed to in the meeting. It also fails to solve the problem. Please correct the Comment as set forth below in blue. Thanks!
Greg
There's a problem with the recommendation for Section 1.1(c). Specifically, the "Recommendation" is incorrect (based on both the "Issue" stated just above it and the call we had last week). The decision of the group was to eliminate the second clause (beginning with "and nothing..."), leaving only the first clause "For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority." The proposed Recommendation gets this almost exactly backward, deleting the first clause and leaving the second. This needs to be fixed as set forth below.
Currently the section reads as follows:
1. Draft Bylaws section 1.1 (c) 1.1. Text from the Bylaws: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority, and nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that it does have authority to impose such regulations.” 1.2. Issue: The last clause of the last sentence: "nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that it does have authority to impose such regulations" Appears to create some ambiguity. 1.3. Recommendation: Remove this clause and end the sentence with "authority." The text would now read: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that ICANN does have such authority.”
Instead, the Recommendation should be changed to read as follows:
1.3. Recommendation: Remove this clause and end the sentence with "authority." The text would now read: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority.”
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Bernard Turcotte < turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Please find attached V2.0 of the CCWG-Accountability comments to be submitted to the ICANN public consultation on the New Bylaws.
Modifications since V1.0 was circulated (There is no red-line comparison as too many things have changed. Rather we are providing a high level summary of changes here and are providing both versions V1.0 and 2.0 for ease of comparison):
- V1.0 items 9 and 10 have been removed following consideration of legal counsel advice.
- 9. Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 1.4(b) - 10. Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 2.2 (c) (i) (A)
- V2.0 new item 9 is - Draft Bylaws Section 1.2(b)(viii) which was in the initial comments but not included in V1.0 - V2.0 new items 10 to 14. These are a selection by the leadership from the list of issues submitted by Alan Greenberg this past weekend
- 10. Draft Bylaws Section 7.12 (b) - 11. Draft Bylaws Section 4.6(b)(ii) - 12. Draft Bylaws Section 7.4(d) - 13. Draft Bylaws Section 7.11(a)(i)(B) - 14. Draft Bylaws Annex D, Section 1.4(b)(i-ii)
- V2.0 New - Conclusion - short recap of Introduction
The Final Feedback period is only intended to provide the CCWG-Accountability participants the opportunity to confirm there are no significant issues or gaps in this version and is not intended as an opportunity to raise new issues.
The Feedback period will begin 20:00UTC today Wednesday May 11th and close 20:00UTC Thursday May 12th.
Please reply to the list using the Subject line of this message to facilitate identifying your input (or simply REPLY to this email).
The objective of the leadership is to finalize these and submit them before the weekend.
Documents attached.
Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs - Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
From the minutes "*Bylaws section 1.1.(c), issue with language* - Suggested fix GShatan: The simplest solution would be to remove this clause and end the sentence with "authority." That removes the issue of "What does "such regulations" refer to?" I support this fix. TR supported. *General agreement to include this point in **CCWG** comments.*"
Please can you help me understand what part of the above is not implemented. I like to state that *unless* the legal team confirms otherwise, we stick to what they have recommended. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 13 May 2016 06:01, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Mathieu,
I don't believe you are correct on this point. I looked back at the both mark-ups provided by Sidley/Adler and there was no substantive comment on this point in either draft. The fix in my email reflects the outcome of the last CCWG call. The origin of the Recommendation in the draft is obscure, and does not come from the CCWG. Furthermore, the Recommendation as drafted does not make sense. The appropriate action to take is to execute what was agreed on the call, which is what's reflected in my email.
Greg
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Greg,
I believe we also received a comment on this from our lawyers, and we felt safer to go with our lawyer’s version.
The difference seems to be in specifically mentioning “governmentally authorized regulatory” authority.
Mathieu
*De :* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *De la part de* Greg Shatan *Envoyé :* mercredi 11 mai 2016 21:02 *À :* Bernard Turcotte *Cc :* Accountability Cross Community *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - V2.0 of comments on draft Bylaws - 24 hour Final Feedback by CCWG-Accountability
This version fails to take into account my comment of May 9, which I will copy and paste here for ease of reference. Simply put, the Recommendation in this draft (as in the first draft) is not what we agreed to in the meeting. It also fails to solve the problem. Please correct the Comment as set forth below in blue. Thanks!
Greg
There's a problem with the recommendation for Section 1.1(c). Specifically, the "Recommendation" is incorrect (based on both the "Issue" stated just above it and the call we had last week). The decision of the group was to eliminate the second clause (beginning with "and nothing..."), leaving only the first clause "For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority." The proposed Recommendation gets this almost exactly backward, deleting the first clause and leaving the second. This needs to be fixed as set forth below.
Currently the section reads as follows:
1. Draft Bylaws section 1.1 (c) 1.1. Text from the Bylaws: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority, and nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that it does have authority to impose such regulations.” 1.2. Issue: The last clause of the last sentence: "nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that it does have authority to impose such regulations" Appears to create some ambiguity. 1.3. Recommendation: Remove this clause and end the sentence with "authority." The text would now read: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that ICANN does have such authority.”
Instead, the Recommendation should be changed to read as follows:
1.3. Recommendation: Remove this clause and end the sentence with "authority." The text would now read: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority.”
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Bernard Turcotte < turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Please find attached V2.0 of the CCWG-Accountability comments to be submitted to the ICANN public consultation on the New Bylaws.
Modifications since V1.0 was circulated (There is no red-line comparison as too many things have changed. Rather we are providing a high level summary of changes here and are providing both versions V1.0 and 2.0 for ease of comparison):
- V1.0 items 9 and 10 have been removed following consideration of legal counsel advice.
- 9. Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 1.4(b) - 10. Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 2.2 (c) (i) (A)
- V2.0 new item 9 is - Draft Bylaws Section 1.2(b)(viii) which was in the initial comments but not included in V1.0 - V2.0 new items 10 to 14. These are a selection by the leadership from the list of issues submitted by Alan Greenberg this past weekend
- 10. Draft Bylaws Section 7.12 (b) - 11. Draft Bylaws Section 4.6(b)(ii) - 12. Draft Bylaws Section 7.4(d) - 13. Draft Bylaws Section 7.11(a)(i)(B) - 14. Draft Bylaws Annex D, Section 1.4(b)(i-ii)
- V2.0 New - Conclusion - short recap of Introduction
The Final Feedback period is only intended to provide the CCWG-Accountability participants the opportunity to confirm there are no significant issues or gaps in this version and is not intended as an opportunity to raise new issues.
The Feedback period will begin 20:00UTC today Wednesday May 11th and close 20:00UTC Thursday May 12th.
Please reply to the list using the Subject line of this message to facilitate identifying your input (or simply REPLY to this email).
The objective of the leadership is to finalize these and submit them before the weekend.
Documents attached.
Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs - Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez
_______________________________________________ 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
Greg, All, We have confirmed with lawyers that your formulation is ok. We will fix it. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Best Mathieu De : Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Envoyé : vendredi 13 mai 2016 07:37 À : Greg Shatan Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Mathieu Weill Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - V2.0 of comments on draft Bylaws - 24 hour Final Feedback by CCWG-Accountability
From the minutes "Bylaws section 1.1.(c), issue with language - Suggested fix GShatan: The simplest solution would be to remove this clause and end the sentence with "authority." That removes the issue of "What does "such regulations" refer to?" I support this fix. TR supported. General agreement to include this point in CCWG comments."
Please can you help me understand what part of the above is not implemented. I like to state that *unless* the legal team confirms otherwise, we stick to what they have recommended. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 13 May 2016 06:01, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Mathieu, I don't believe you are correct on this point. I looked back at the both mark-ups provided by Sidley/Adler and there was no substantive comment on this point in either draft. The fix in my email reflects the outcome of the last CCWG call. The origin of the Recommendation in the draft is obscure, and does not come from the CCWG. Furthermore, the Recommendation as drafted does not make sense. The appropriate action to take is to execute what was agreed on the call, which is what's reflected in my email. Greg On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote: Greg, I believe we also received a comment on this from our lawyers, and we felt safer to go with our lawyer’s version. The difference seems to be in specifically mentioning “governmentally authorized regulatory” authority. Mathieu De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Greg Shatan Envoyé : mercredi 11 mai 2016 21:02 À : Bernard Turcotte Cc : Accountability Cross Community Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - V2.0 of comments on draft Bylaws - 24 hour Final Feedback by CCWG-Accountability This version fails to take into account my comment of May 9, which I will copy and paste here for ease of reference. Simply put, the Recommendation in this draft (as in the first draft) is not what we agreed to in the meeting. It also fails to solve the problem. Please correct the Comment as set forth below in blue. Thanks! Greg There's a problem with the recommendation for Section 1.1(c). Specifically, the "Recommendation" is incorrect (based on both the "Issue" stated just above it and the call we had last week). The decision of the group was to eliminate the second clause (beginning with "and nothing..."), leaving only the first clause "For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority." The proposed Recommendation gets this almost exactly backward, deleting the first clause and leaving the second. This needs to be fixed as set forth below. Currently the section reads as follows: 1. Draft Bylaws section 1.1 (c) 1.1. Text from the Bylaws: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority, and nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that it does have authority to impose such regulations.” 1.2. Issue: The last clause of the last sentence: "nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that it does have authority to impose such regulations" Appears to create some ambiguity. 1.3. Recommendation: Remove this clause and end the sentence with "authority." The text would now read: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that ICANN does have such authority.” Instead, the Recommendation should be changed to read as follows: 1.3. Recommendation: Remove this clause and end the sentence with "authority." The text would now read: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority.” On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> wrote: All, Please find attached V2.0 of the CCWG-Accountability comments to be submitted to the ICANN public consultation on the New Bylaws. Modifications since V1.0 was circulated (There is no red-line comparison as too many things have changed. Rather we are providing a high level summary of changes here and are providing both versions V1.0 and 2.0 for ease of comparison): * V1.0 items 9 and 10 have been removed following consideration of legal counsel advice. * 9. Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 1.4(b) * 10. Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 2.2 (c) (i) (A) * V2.0 new item 9 is - Draft Bylaws Section 1.2(b)(viii) which was in the initial comments but not included in V1.0 * V2.0 new items 10 to 14. These are a selection by the leadership from the list of issues submitted by Alan Greenberg this past weekend * 10. Draft Bylaws Section 7.12 (b) * 11. Draft Bylaws Section 4.6(b)(ii) * 12. Draft Bylaws Section 7.4(d) * 13. Draft Bylaws Section 7.11(a)(i)(B) * 14. Draft Bylaws Annex D, Section 1.4(b)(i-ii) * V2.0 New - Conclusion - short recap of Introduction The Final Feedback period is only intended to provide the CCWG-Accountability participants the opportunity to confirm there are no significant issues or gaps in this version and is not intended as an opportunity to raise new issues. The Feedback period will begin 20:00UTC today Wednesday May 11th and close 20:00UTC Thursday May 12th. Please reply to the list using the Subject line of this message to facilitate identifying your input (or simply REPLY to this email). The objective of the leadership is to finalize these and submit them before the weekend. Documents attached. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs - Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez _______________________________________________ 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
But ending with "...such authority.." Implies that ICANN does not have authority to regulate, irrespective of if it's governmental or not. No idea why it needs be specific to government and not be generic enough to cover all (as I understand is the intent of the proposed edit). Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 11 May 2016 20:02, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
This version fails to take into account my comment of May 9, which I will copy and paste here for ease of reference. Simply put, the Recommendation in this draft (as in the first draft) is not what we agreed to in the meeting. It also fails to solve the problem. Please correct the Comment as set forth below in blue. Thanks!
Greg
There's a problem with the recommendation for Section 1.1(c). Specifically, the "Recommendation" is incorrect (based on both the "Issue" stated just above it and the call we had last week). The decision of the group was to eliminate the second clause (beginning with "and nothing..."), leaving only the first clause "For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority." The proposed Recommendation gets this almost exactly backward, deleting the first clause and leaving the second. This needs to be fixed as set forth below.
Currently the section reads as follows:
1. Draft Bylaws section 1.1 (c) 1.1. Text from the Bylaws: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority, and nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that it does have authority to impose such regulations.” 1.2. Issue: The last clause of the last sentence: "nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that it does have authority to impose such regulations" Appears to create some ambiguity. 1.3. Recommendation: Remove this clause and end the sentence with "authority." The text would now read: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that ICANN does have such authority.”
Instead, the Recommendation should be changed to read as follows:
1.3. Recommendation: Remove this clause and end the sentence with "authority." The text would now read: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority.”
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Bernard Turcotte < turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Please find attached V2.0 of the CCWG-Accountability comments to be submitted to the ICANN public consultation on the New Bylaws.
Modifications since V1.0 was circulated (There is no red-line comparison as too many things have changed. Rather we are providing a high level summary of changes here and are providing both versions V1.0 and 2.0 for ease of comparison):
- V1.0 items 9 and 10 have been removed following consideration of legal counsel advice. - 9. Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 1.4(b) - 10. Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 2.2 (c) (i) (A) - V2.0 new item 9 is - Draft Bylaws Section 1.2(b)(viii) which was in the initial comments but not included in V1.0 - V2.0 new items 10 to 14. These are a selection by the leadership from the list of issues submitted by Alan Greenberg this past weekend - 10. Draft Bylaws Section 7.12 (b) - 11. Draft Bylaws Section 4.6(b)(ii) -
12. Draft Bylaws Section 7.4(d) -
13. Draft Bylaws Section 7.11(a)(i)(B) -
14. Draft Bylaws Annex D, Section 1.4(b)(i-ii) - V2.0 New - Conclusion - short recap of Introduction
The Final Feedback period is only intended to provide the CCWG-Accountability participants the opportunity to confirm there are no significant issues or gaps in this version and is not intended as an opportunity to raise new issues.
The Feedback period will begin 20:00UTC today Wednesday May 11th and close 20:00UTC Thursday May 12th.
Please reply to the list using the Subject line of this message to facilitate identifying your input (or simply REPLY to this email).
The objective of the leadership is to finalize these and submit them before the weekend.
Documents attached.
Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs - Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi, I note this does not ask that 1.1(d)(ii) E not be removed. I think that's the 5 year plans. How come that's ok to be grandfathered? Note that it's not the 5 year plans that exist now, but the ones to be adopted. I don't think the CCWG or CWG asked to grandfather those any more than they did the various outside agreements. I heartily agree with the point in the comments that "the implementation phase is not a time to incorporate new provisions that were not in the CCWG-Accountability Recommendations," and I think this is another example of it. Best regards, A On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 02:53:37PM -0400, Bernard Turcotte wrote:
All,
Please find attached V2.0 of the CCWG-Accountability comments to be submitted to the ICANN public consultation on the New Bylaws.
Modifications since V1.0 was circulated (There is no red-line comparison as too many things have changed. Rather we are providing a high level summary of changes here and are providing both versions V1.0 and 2.0 for ease of comparison):
- V1.0 items 9 and 10 have been removed following consideration of legal counsel advice. - 9. Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 1.4(b) - 10. Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 2.2 (c) (i) (A) - V2.0 new item 9 is - Draft Bylaws Section 1.2(b)(viii) which was in the initial comments but not included in V1.0 - V2.0 new items 10 to 14. These are a selection by the leadership from the list of issues submitted by Alan Greenberg this past weekend - 10. Draft Bylaws Section 7.12 (b) - 11. Draft Bylaws Section 4.6(b)(ii) -
12. Draft Bylaws Section 7.4(d) -
13. Draft Bylaws Section 7.11(a)(i)(B) -
14. Draft Bylaws Annex D, Section 1.4(b)(i-ii) - V2.0 New - Conclusion - short recap of Introduction
The Final Feedback period is only intended to provide the CCWG-Accountability participants the opportunity to confirm there are no significant issues or gaps in this version and is not intended as an opportunity to raise new issues.
The Feedback period will begin 20:00UTC today Wednesday May 11th and close 20:00UTC Thursday May 12th.
Please reply to the list using the Subject line of this message to facilitate identifying your input (or simply REPLY to this email).
The objective of the leadership is to finalize these and submit them before the weekend.
Documents attached.
Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs - Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
All, I did not see a reference to my question about 1.1(d)(ii)(E). When did the CCWG decide that E (the Five-year Strategic Pan and the Five-year Operating Plan existing on 1 October 2016) should be grandfathered and exempt from RFR or IRP challenge? Failing to include (E) in comment 2 would imply CCWG support for grandfathering these plans and excluding them from IRP or RFR challenge. Also, while I agree with the lawyers statement that the GAC carve-out would and should apply to approval actions as stated in 3.6(e), I do not see the harm in recommending that the bylaws confirm that fact in Annex D through the addition of “after accounting for any adjustments to the below as required by the GAC Carve-out pursuant to Section 3.6(e) of the Bylaws if the Approval Action Board Notice included a GAC Consensus Statement”, which would be consistent with existing text on rejection actions. Best, Brett From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 2:54 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - V2.0 of comments on draft Bylaws - 24 hour Final Feedback by CCWG-Accountability All, Please find attached V2.0 of the CCWG-Accountability comments to be submitted to the ICANN public consultation on the New Bylaws. Modifications since V1.0 was circulated (There is no red-line comparison as too many things have changed. Rather we are providing a high level summary of changes here and are providing both versions V1.0 and 2.0 for ease of comparison): * V1.0 items 9 and 10 have been removed following consideration of legal counsel advice. * 9. Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 1.4(b) * 10. Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 2.2 (c) (i) (A) * V2.0 new item 9 is - Draft Bylaws Section 1.2(b)(viii) which was in the initial comments but not included in V1.0 * V2.0 new items 10 to 14. These are a selection by the leadership from the list of issues submitted by Alan Greenberg this past weekend * 10. Draft Bylaws Section 7.12 (b) * 11. Draft Bylaws Section 4.6(b)(ii) * 12. Draft Bylaws Section 7.4(d) * 13. Draft Bylaws Section 7.11(a)(i)(B) * 14. Draft Bylaws Annex D, Section 1.4(b)(i-ii) * V2.0 New - Conclusion - short recap of Introduction The Final Feedback period is only intended to provide the CCWG-Accountability participants the opportunity to confirm there are no significant issues or gaps in this version and is not intended as an opportunity to raise new issues. The Feedback period will begin 20:00UTC today Wednesday May 11th and close 20:00UTC Thursday May 12th. Please reply to the list using the Subject line of this message to facilitate identifying your input (or simply REPLY to this email). The objective of the leadership is to finalize these and submit them before the weekend. Documents attached. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs - Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez ________________________________ 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/>
I agree with Brett on both points below. Thanks, Robin
On May 11, 2016, at 12:21 PM, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
All,
I did not see a reference to my question about 1.1(d)(ii)(E). When did the CCWG decide that E (the Five-year Strategic Pan and the Five-year Operating Plan existing on 1 October 2016) should be grandfathered and exempt from RFR or IRP challenge? Failing to include (E) in comment 2 would imply CCWG support for grandfathering these plans and excluding them from IRP or RFR challenge.
Also, while I agree with the lawyers statement that the GAC carve-out would and should apply to approval actions as stated in 3.6(e), I do not see the harm in recommending that the bylaws confirm that fact in Annex D through the addition of “after accounting for any adjustments to the below as required by the GAC Carve-out pursuant to Section 3.6(e) of the Bylaws if the Approval Action Board Notice included a GAC Consensus Statement”, which would be consistent with existing text on rejection actions.
Best,
Brett
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 Bernard Turcotte Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 2:54 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - V2.0 of comments on draft Bylaws - 24 hour Final Feedback by CCWG-Accountability
All,
Please find attached V2.0 of the CCWG-Accountability comments to be submitted to the ICANN public consultation on the New Bylaws.
Modifications since V1.0 was circulated (There is no red-line comparison as too many things have changed. Rather we are providing a high level summary of changes here and are providing both versions V1.0 and 2.0 for ease of comparison):
V1.0 items 9 and 10 have been removed following consideration of legal counsel advice. 9. Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 1.4(b) 10. Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 2.2 (c) (i) (A) V2.0 new item 9 is - Draft Bylaws Section 1.2(b)(viii) which was in the initial comments but not included in V1.0 V2.0 new items 10 to 14. These are a selection by the leadership from the list of issues submitted by Alan Greenberg this past weekend 10. Draft Bylaws Section 7.12 (b) 11. Draft Bylaws Section 4.6(b)(ii) 12. Draft Bylaws Section 7.4(d) 13. Draft Bylaws Section 7.11(a)(i)(B) 14. Draft Bylaws Annex D, Section 1.4(b)(i-ii) V2.0 New - Conclusion - short recap of Introduction The Final Feedback period is only intended to provide the CCWG-Accountability participants the opportunity to confirm there are no significant issues or gaps in this version and is not intended as an opportunity to raise new issues.
The Feedback period will begin 20:00UTC today Wednesday May 11th and close 20:00UTC Thursday May 12th.
Please reply to the list using the Subject line of this message to facilitate identifying your input (or simply REPLY to this email).
The objective of the leadership is to finalize these and submit them before the weekend.
Documents attached.
Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs - Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez
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/>
_______________________________________________ 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>
participants (7)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Bernard Turcotte -
Greg Shatan -
Mathieu Weill -
Robin Gross -
Schaefer, Brett -
Seun Ojedeji