Thank-you Grace, We will now transmit to Sidley for them to produce their next version of the bylaws for subsequent transmission to ICANN legal. Separate logistics conversations mean that this needs to be done within a week i.e. by 18th March 2016. Lise & Jonathan From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: 10 March 2016 04:58 To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Final version of Bylaws Matrix Responses Dear all, Here attached is the final version of the bylaws matrix responses. Thank you to those who submitted feedback. The document is now ready for the Client Committee to instruct Sidley on next steps. For information, the outcome on the three issues raised is as follows: * Issue #1 Thresholds: Move forward with current practices, i.e. simple majority, since CSC Charter amendments will go a public comment process prior to approval by the ccNSO and GNSO. * Issue #2 Timing of 1st IFR: Suggestion to proceed with "will commence not later than two years after the Transition” * Issue #3 Use of the Empowered Community mechanisms for the Special IFR: There is support for using the community mechanisms, but in order to provide flexibility in the Bylaws, and for the Special IFR process, the suggestion is to move forward with: " ... allow the RySG and/or ccNSO to launch a consultation process leading to a review ... " Best, Grace From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com> > Date: Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:45 PM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> >, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com> > Cc: Nathalie Vergnolle <nathalie.vergnolle@icann.org <mailto:nathalie.vergnolle@icann.org> >, Akram Atallah <akram.atallah@icann.org <mailto:akram.atallah@icann.org> >, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> " <cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Input Needed: Bylaws Matrix Responses and Three Issues These suggestions seem fine to me. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> > Date: 02/29/2016 5:47 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com> > Cc: Nathalie Vergnolle <nathalie.vergnolle@icann.org <mailto:nathalie.vergnolle@icann.org> >, Akram Atallah <akram.atallah@icann.org <mailto:akram.atallah@icann.org> >, cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Input Needed: Bylaws Matrix Responses and Three Issues Thank you Martin and Cheryl. Is there any additional feedback? We would like to finalize this by the end of the week. Summary of feedback so far: Issue #1 Thresholds: Move forward with current practices, i.e. simple majority, since CSC Charter amendments will go a public comment process prior to approval by the ccNSO and GNSO. * Support: Donna, Paul, Cheryl, Martin * No objections Issue #2 Timing of 1st IFR: Martin suggested the following compromise text: "will commence not later than two years after the Transition” * Support: Martin, Cheryl * No objections Issue #3 Use of the Empowered Community mechanisms for the Special IFR: There is support for using the community mechanisms, but in order to provide flexibility in the Bylaws, and for the Special IFR process, Martin suggested: " ... allow the RySG and/or ccNSO to launch a consultation process leading to a review ... " * Support: Martin, Cheryl * No objections Please send your feedback as soon as possible on list so that we can pass the responses to Sidley and proceed with the work plan. Thank you, Grace From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com> > Date: Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:10 PM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> > Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> " <cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> >, Nathalie Vergnolle <nathalie.vergnolle@icann.org <mailto:nathalie.vergnolle@icann.org> >, Akram Atallah <akram.atallah@icann.org <mailto:akram.atallah@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Input Needed: Bylaws Matrix Responses and Three Issues Grace thank you for this... Sorry for a slight delay in reply, please see my responses inter-spaces below... <CLO> Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr <http://d13pix9kaak6wt.cloudfront.net/signature/colorbar.png> On 26 February 2016 at 04:41, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> > wrote: Dear CWG-Stewardship and ICANN Implementation Team, Please see attached the latest version of the responses to the Sidley Bylaws Matrix as well as a list of three currently unresolved issues for CWG-Stewardship input (also copied below for your convenience). The action assigned on the CWG-Stewardship call today was to share these documents with the group, and simultaneously with the ICANN implementation team for any input they may have. On the CWG-Stewardship call today, we outlined the three issues and had an initial, but non-conclusive, discussion about them. On the thresholds issue, Donna Austin suggests we go with current practices, i.e. simple majority, since Charter amendments will go a public comment process prior to approval by the ccNSO and GNSO. Paul Kane agrees. Looking forward to your input, Grace A recap of the three issues presented on call (also in document attached): There are three issues for the CWG-Stewardship to address: Issue #1: Thresholds For the CSC Charter, the CCNSO and GNSO Councils must approve amendments. The DT leads noted that the intention is that the respective Councils (ccNSO and GNSO) would vote to ratify any proposed charter amendment/s and the threshold would be in accordance with their respective methods of operation. However, the current responses further suggest that, “supermajority of both Councils would seem appropriate if this can be accommodated.” Staff would like to note that supermajority may not be consistent with current practice in the GNSO and CCNSO Councils. In the case of the GNSO, the default voting threshold is simple majority of each house. Should a supermajority vote be deemed appropriate for this purpose, the relevant section in the ICANN bylaws that details voting thresholds that differ from simple majority, would need to be updated. Does the CWG want to define a higher threshold for the CCNSO and GNSO councils or proceed with existing operating procedures within the Councils? <CLO> I would suggest going with the existing OP's within the Councils... Issue #2: Timing of the first IANA Function Review Paragraph (194) of the CWG Final Proposal provides that the IFR “will not commence” until two years after this date, but Paragraph (301) provides that the initial IFR must be completed by this 2-year anniversary Current response: Paragraph 301 being focused on the IFR while Paragraph 194 being a timetable makes Paragraph 301 the determining one. However, Paragraphs 267/268 seem to confirm the ambiguity. Separately, Paragraph 194 does allow, however for a Special IFR sooner than 2 years if needed. CWG needs to choose: 1. The first IFR will not commence until two years after the Transition 2. The first IFR will be completed by the 2-year anniversary of the Transition <CLO> I rather like the text proposed by Martin => “will commence not later than two years after the Transition” Issue #3: Use of the Empowered Community mechanisms for the Special IFR The CWG needs to consider specifying a forum and process for the Special IFR. Paragraphs (125) and (303) of the CWG Final Proposal provide that consideration of whether to trigger a Special IFR “may” include a public comment period but is silent on who determines whether there should be a public comment period. If the CWG-Stewardship adopts the Empowered Community mechanism of the CCWG-Accountability, then the process for escalation includes a discussion forum. Would that be sufficient? If not, the CWG-Stewardship could mandate a standard ICANN public comment period before triggering a Special IFR. <CLO> In my view it would be best for most circumstances ( and provide a higher degree of understanding and predictability within the wider ICANN Community if the CWG-Stewardship adopts the Empowered Community Mechanism of the CCWG-Accountability, but again I am rather leaning towards also picking up in the flexibility allowed by Martin's proposed text => " ... allow the RySG and/or ccNSO to launch a consultation process leading to a review ... " _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship