[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [client com] Suggestions regarding the transition models now under consideration

Jordan Carter jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Mon Apr 6 21:51:36 UTC 2015

Dear all, this is of interest esp. the second point.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Boucher, Rick <rboucher at sidley.com>
Date: 7 April 2015 at 03:45
Subject: [client com] Suggestions regarding the transition models now under
To: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan at sidley.com>, "cwg-client at icann.org" <
cwg-client at icann.org>

  Sharon and colleagues,

With a view toward enhancing the prospect for congressional acceptance of
the transition proposal, I offered these suggestions with respect to the
models under consideration:

1. It's far better for the PTI to be a separate nonprofit public benefit
corporation. While this approach may add to structural complexity, it
underscores the extent to which there is a clear separation between ICANN's
DNS policymaking function and the performance of the IANA functions.

2. A careful review should be undertaken of the commitments imposed on
ICANN in the Affirmation of Commitments ICANN entered into with NTIA. The
obligations ICANN has undertaken in the Affirmation should be incorporated
into the bylaws of ICANN, and these bylaws should not be amendable by the
ICANN board without a supermajority of all board members (not just those
present and voting). Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Thune's letter to
ICANN says that the ICANN board should not be in a position to terminate
the Affirmation of Commitments unless more than 4/5 of the entire board
votes to do so. An appropriate way to acknowledge this recommendation would
be to require a 4/5 majority of the entire board for amendments to the
portions of the bylaws containing the ICANN responsibilities under the
Commitments. This could also be the kind of board decision which would be
subject to approval by the group of members. Please note that one of the
commitments is that ICANN will remain headquartered in the United States.

3. The PTI board should be truly independent from the ICANN board, not
ICANN board designated or controlled. It should be member group appointed,
and there should be very limited if any overlap in membership between the
ICANN Board and the PTI board.

4. The Periodic Review Team (PRT) should be chosen by an answerable to the
member group. It is the main way members have of being certain the IANA
functions are being satisfactorily performed.



*Sidley Austin LLP*
rboucher at sidley.com

*From:* Flanagan, Sharon
*Sent:* Saturday, April 04, 2015 10:51 AM
*To:* 'cwg-client at icann.org'
*Cc:* Grace Abuhamad; Gregory, Holly; Hofheimer, Joshua T.; Clark, Michael
A.; McNicholas, Edward R.; Boucher, Rick; Kerry, Cameron; Mohan, Vivek;
Hilton, Tyler; Tam, Tennie H.; Fuller, Miles
*Subject:* Transition Models for Further Consideration

Dear All,

Attached is an initial discussion draft of the two models that the CWG
requested Sidley's input on:  the internal accountability/hybrid model with
two closely related variants:  accountability mechanism with legal
separation and accountability mechanism with functional separation.  We
look forward to discussing.

Best regards,



*Sidley Austin LLP*
sflanagan at 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


Cwg-client mailing list
Cwg-client at icann.org

Jordan Carter

Chief Executive

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter

*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150407/215026e7/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list