Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] Input requested regarding Paragraph 106 of CWG Proposal
Hi Jonathan, Just a very minor clarifying question (which you or legal could answer); did legal revert because they now confirm lack of ambiguity in the text? That said, I have no problem about the text reverted to but their response to my question could make a difference. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 20 Apr 2016 09:58, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote: All, Please note the response from Sharon Flanagan below. Jonathan *From:* Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] *Sent:* 20 April 2016 14:43 *To:* 'jrobinson@afilias.info' <jrobinson@afilias.info>; ' maarten.simon@sidn.nl' <maarten.simon@sidn.nl>; 'gregshatanipc@gmail.com' < gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Cc:* 'cwg-client@icann.org' <cwg-client@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [client com] Input requested regarding Paragraph 106 of CWG Proposal We reverted to the language of the CWG proposal which covered all three: mission, role and purpose. Sharon R. Flanagan Sidley Austin LLP SF tel: 415-772-1271 PA tel: 650-565-7008 Email: sflanagan@sidley.com *From*: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info <jrobinson@afilias.info>] *Sent*: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 04:40 AM *To*: Flanagan, Sharon; 'Maarten Simon' <maarten.simon@sidn.nl>; 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Cc*: 'Client Committee' <cwg-client@icann.org> *Subject*: RE: [client com] Input requested regarding Paragraph 106 of CWG Proposal Hello Sharon, Please could you confirm the resolution of the point: “We’re requesting confirmation that the Mission of ICANN as set forth in the Bylaws is synonymous with the “purpose, mission and role” of ICANN as set forth in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws for purposes of the CWG proposal. ” Thank-you, Jonathan *From:* Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com <sflanagan@sidley.com>] *Sent:* 18 April 2016 18:26 *To:* 'Maarten Simon' <maarten.simon@sidn.nl>; Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Cc:* Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [client com] Input requested regarding Paragraph 106 of CWG Proposal Thanks for the input. We will propose back that the original wording of the CWG proposal be retained. Best regards, Sharon *SHARON R. FLANAGAN* *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP*+1 415 772 1271 sflanagan@sidley.com *From:* Maarten Simon [mailto:maarten.simon@sidn.nl <maarten.simon@sidn.nl>] *Sent:* Monday, April 18, 2016 12:45 AM *To:* Greg Shatan; Flanagan, Sharon *Cc:* Client Committee *Subject:* Re: [client com] Input requested regarding Paragraph 106 of CWG Proposal I tend to agree with Greg that as the sentence ends with ‘or other matters of concern to the community’ it is not an issue to use the text as is in the proposal including ‘ purpose’ and ‘role’ although these are not (formally) defined. I therefore support his alternative 1. *From: *<cwg-client-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Saturday 16 April 2016 at 18:33 *To: *Sharon Flanagan <sflanagan@sidley.com> *Cc: *"cwg-client@icann.org" <cwg-client@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [client com] Input requested regarding Paragraph 106 of CWG Proposal Since this is an open ended list (ending with "or other matters of concern to the community."), i don't think there's a big issue with including "purpose" and "role". However, I do think these terms are different in nature from the defined Mission, and from each other. Purpose can be traced back to, and is essentially defined in Article 2 of the ICANN Articles of Incorporation; as such, it is similar to Mission in specificity. Role on the other hand is completely ambiguous and undefined. Alternatives may be: 1. Leave as is -- ambiguity and all (but to my mind only "role" is ambiguous). 2. Move role elsewhere in the list, without reference to the Articles and Bylaws -- however, this makes it even more ambiguous (as currently drafted, it's at least clear that the "role" needs to be derived from the Articles and Bylaws in some fashion. 3. Eliminate "role" entirely -- but we then run the risk of losing a point that was being made by the CWG, since Role has a different connotation than Mission or Purpose, and has more to do with how the Mission and Purpose are carried out. Greg On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:28 PM, Flanagan, Sharon <sflanagan@sidley.com> wrote: Dear All, There is language in the CWG proposal at paragraph 106 regarding budget approvals that refers to: “The community may reject the ICANN Budget based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, mission and role set forth 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.” We’re requesting confirmation that the Mission of ICANN as set forth in the Bylaws is synonymous with the “purpose, mission and role” of ICANN as set forth in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws for purposes of the CWG proposal. The concern is that “purpose” and “role” are otherwise ambiguous and not defined, whereas the Mission is carefully articulated. Thanks, Sharon *SHARON R. FLANAGAN* *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP* 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1 415 772 1271 sflanagan@sidley.com www.sidley.com *[image: SIDLEY]* **************************************************************************************************** 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. **************************************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Cwg-client mailing list Cwg-client@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi Seun, Sorry for the delay. I assume that they were satisfied that there was sufficient clarity / lack of ambiguity but I haven’t explicitly asked. Thanks, Jonathan From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: 20 April 2016 16:14 To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] Input requested regarding Paragraph 106 of CWG Proposal Hi Jonathan, Just a very minor clarifying question (which you or legal could answer); did legal revert because they now confirm lack of ambiguity in the text? That said, I have no problem about the text reverted to but their response to my question could make a difference. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 20 Apr 2016 09:58, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> > wrote: All, Please note the response from Sharon Flanagan below. Jonathan From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> ] Sent: 20 April 2016 14:43 To: 'jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> ' <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> >; 'maarten.simon@sidn.nl <mailto:maarten.simon@sidn.nl> ' <maarten.simon@sidn.nl <mailto:maarten.simon@sidn.nl> >; 'gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> ' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: 'cwg-client@icann.org <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org> ' <cwg-client@icann.org <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [client com] Input requested regarding Paragraph 106 of CWG Proposal We reverted to the language of the CWG proposal which covered all three: mission, role and purpose. Sharon R. Flanagan Sidley Austin LLP SF tel: 415-772-1271 PA tel: 650-565-7008 Email: sflanagan@sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 04:40 AM To: Flanagan, Sharon; 'Maarten Simon' <maarten.simon@sidn.nl <mailto:maarten.simon@sidn.nl> >; 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: 'Client Committee' <cwg-client@icann.org <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [client com] Input requested regarding Paragraph 106 of CWG Proposal Hello Sharon, Please could you confirm the resolution of the point: “We’re requesting confirmation that the Mission of ICANN as set forth in the Bylaws is synonymous with the “purpose, mission and role” of ICANN as set forth in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws for purposes of the CWG proposal. ” Thank-you, Jonathan From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 18 April 2016 18:26 To: 'Maarten Simon' <maarten.simon@sidn.nl <mailto:maarten.simon@sidn.nl> >; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [client com] Input requested regarding Paragraph 106 of CWG Proposal Thanks for the input. We will propose back that the original wording of the CWG proposal be retained. Best regards, Sharon SHARON R. FLANAGAN SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP +1 415 772 1271 <tel:%2B1%20415%20772%201271> sflanagan@sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> From: Maarten Simon [mailto:maarten.simon@sidn.nl] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 12:45 AM To: Greg Shatan; Flanagan, Sharon Cc: Client Committee Subject: Re: [client com] Input requested regarding Paragraph 106 of CWG Proposal I tend to agree with Greg that as the sentence ends with ‘or other matters of concern to the community’ it is not an issue to use the text as is in the proposal including ‘ purpose’ and ‘role’ although these are not (formally) defined. I therefore support his alternative 1. From: <cwg-client-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Saturday 16 April 2016 at 18:33 To: Sharon Flanagan <sflanagan@sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> > Cc: "cwg-client@icann.org <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org> " <cwg-client@icann.org <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [client com] Input requested regarding Paragraph 106 of CWG Proposal Since this is an open ended list (ending with "or other matters of concern to the community."), i don't think there's a big issue with including "purpose" and "role". However, I do think these terms are different in nature from the defined Mission, and from each other. Purpose can be traced back to, and is essentially defined in Article 2 of the ICANN Articles of Incorporation; as such, it is similar to Mission in specificity. Role on the other hand is completely ambiguous and undefined. Alternatives may be: 1. Leave as is -- ambiguity and all (but to my mind only "role" is ambiguous). 2. Move role elsewhere in the list, without reference to the Articles and Bylaws -- however, this makes it even more ambiguous (as currently drafted, it's at least clear that the "role" needs to be derived from the Articles and Bylaws in some fashion. 3. Eliminate "role" entirely -- but we then run the risk of losing a point that was being made by the CWG, since Role has a different connotation than Mission or Purpose, and has more to do with how the Mission and Purpose are carried out. Greg On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:28 PM, Flanagan, Sharon <sflanagan@sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> > wrote: Dear All, There is language in the CWG proposal at paragraph 106 regarding budget approvals that refers to: “The community may reject the ICANN Budget based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, mission and role set forth 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.” We’re requesting confirmation that the Mission of ICANN as set forth in the Bylaws is synonymous with the “purpose, mission and role” of ICANN as set forth in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws for purposes of the CWG proposal. The concern is that “purpose” and “role” are otherwise ambiguous and not defined, whereas the Mission is carefully articulated. Thanks, Sharon SHARON R. FLANAGAN SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1 415 772 1271 <tel:%2B1%20415%20772%201271> sflanagan@sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> <http://www.sidley.com> www.sidley.com <http://www2.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SIDLEY_150-AUTOSIG.png> **************************************************************************************************** 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. **************************************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Cwg-client mailing list Cwg-client@icann.org <mailto:Cwg-client@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
participants (2)
-
Jonathan Robinson -
Seun Ojedeji