[CCWG-ACCT] [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
Wed Aug 19 12:33:12 UTC 2015
Dear Kavouss,
We will be reaching out to CWG Co-Chairs to coordinate and propose adjustments flagged by our group. As soon as a final version becomes available, we will be glad to share it with all.
Best regards,
León
> El 19/08/2015, a las 7:16, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> escribió:
>
> Dear Leon
> Further to the yesterday's call ,pls send the finalized doc. if possible
> Kavouss
>
> 2015-08-19 11:42 GMT+02:00 Athina Fragkouli <athina.fragkouli at ripe.net <mailto:athina.fragkouli at ripe.net>>:
> Dear Leon, all,
>
> Thank you for sharing the matrix with us.
>
> I understand that this addresses merely CWG issues and that it is only a
> description of what the provisions will contain. However, as it also
> touches upon CCWG accountability topics, we would like to flag a couple
> of issues so that they are properly addressed in the actual bylaws text.
>
> In particular:
>
> - Section 7 - IANA Function Review.
> It should be clear that this section refers to the IANA naming function
> only.
>
> - Section 9 - Appeal Mechanism
> As there is an exception for the ccTLDs, there should also be
> such an exception for the numbers related disputes.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Athina
> on behalf of the ASO reps
>
>
> On 18/08/15 21:19, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > As spotted by some, there are some inaccuracies in the matrix that need
> > to be taken care of.
> >
> > I will make sure to pass your comments to the CWG Co-Chairs so that they
> > can review them with counsel and make the corresponding corrections to
> > the document.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> >
> > León
> >
> >> El 14/08/2015, a las 0:47, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> >> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>> escribió:
> >>
> >> Dear All,
> >> It is simple ,please replace the word" approve by " Reject " .
> >> Tks
> >> Kavouss
> >>
> >> 2015-08-13 11:27 GMT+02:00 <Sabine.Meyer at bmwi.bund.de <mailto:Sabine.Meyer at bmwi.bund.de>
> >> <mailto:Sabine.Meyer at bmwi.bund.de <mailto:Sabine.Meyer at bmwi.bund.de>>>:
> >>
> >> Dear Julie, Martin, Greg, León,____
> >>
> >> Dear all, ____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> I have a further question about the matrix kindly shared by León,
> >> regarding its section on PTI Governance, specifically Section 1
> >> subsection (a) (ii), i.e. “ jurisdiction of incorporation (i.e.,
> >> to change from California to another jurisdiction)“.____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> Have the deliberations of the CCWG whether or not a bylaw
> >> requirement regarding location of headquarters should be a
> >> Fundamental Bylaw (para 241 – 255 of the draft report) been taken
> >> into account by the CWG? As I understand, the matrix refers to
> >> changes in the ICANN bylaws so I was wondering whether it is fully
> >> consistent with the CCWG proposal in this regard.____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> Best regards____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> Sabine Meyer____
> >>
> >> International Digital and Postal Policy, Internet Governance____
> >>
> >> Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy ____
> >>
> >> Villemombler Strasse 76, 53123 Bonn____
> >>
> >> GERMANY____
> >>
> >> Phone: +49 228 99615-2948 <tel:%2B49%20228%2099615-2948> <tel:%2B49%20228%2099615-2948>____
> >>
> >> Fax: + 49 228 99615-2964 <tel:%2B%2049%20228%2099615-2964> <tel:%2B%2049%20228%2099615-2964>____
> >>
> >> E-Mail: sabine.meyer at bmwi.bund.de <mailto:sabine.meyer at bmwi.bund.de>
> >> <mailto:sabine.meyer at bmwi.bund.de <mailto:sabine.meyer at bmwi.bund.de>>____
> >>
> >> Internet: http://www.bmwi.de <http://www.bmwi.de/> <http://www.bmwi.de/ <http://www.bmwi.de/>>____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> *Von:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
> >> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>>
> >> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
> >> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>>] *Im Auftrag von
> >> *Martin Boyle
> >> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 12. August 2015 19:09
> >> *An:* Greg Shatan; Julie Hammer
> >> *Cc:* At-Large Staff; cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> >> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>; Accountability Cross Community
> >> *Betreff:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> Not sure why, but I did not see Julie’s original mail.____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> I agree with her point. There are also other parts of this
> >> section of the matrix that raise questions for me:____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> __ i. __For all of “2. *ICANN Budget and IANA
> >> Budget*” I think CWG should be consulted where it comes to the
> >> IANA budget.____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> __ ii. __(a) This is definitely something that
> >> needs to be considered by the CWG. I’m not sure about what we
> >> mean by “approved budget.” In my mind, PTI prepares its budget in
> >> discussion with the OCs so there will be a general expectation
> >> that the budget is a community-agreed budget – if it isn’t, there
> >> would be reason for the budget to be challenged. So
> >> couldn’t/shouldn’t ICANN challenge the budget if there were
> >> opposition from the community? I like the idea of a contract
> >> commitment (but wouldn’t that undermine a community power in ICANN
> >> to veto the IANA budget?) subject to there being a condition in
> >> the contract for PTI to develop its budget in consultation with
> >> the OCs (the CSC?), given that runaway budgets in the PTI will
> >> have a knock-on effect on how much they have to pay to ICANN!____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> __ iii. __I like the contract-condition approach
> >> because the same conditions would need to be transferred to any
> >> new operator.____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> __ iv. __(b) Shouldn’t this be a requirement on
> >> the PTI? They are the ones with the budget and the obligations
> >> that go with it. This would seem to be a contract condition.____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> __ v. __(c) Again a contract condition?____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> __ vi. __As I noted above, I agree with Julie.
> >> “Approval” should be part of PTI’s budget development (especially
> >> for things like new investment, enhancing service level
> >> expectations, new technology developments).____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> The CSC is an entity associated with the PTI: Is the framework
> >> under 5 better included in the contract than in a fundamental
> >> bylaw? On the other hand, there will be operational issues and
> >> decisions that would fall under the purview of the ccNSO and GNSO
> >> (selection of members, recall of members, escalation for example)
> >> and these will probably need bylaw changes for the ccNSO and
> >> GNSO. would these need to be fundamental bylaws, though?____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> Under 6, isn’t this something for the PTI, not ICANN? I guess it
> >> could be a condition in the ICANN-PTI contract that the PTI
> >> develops a problem-resolution service, but I wonder how a bylaw in
> >> ICANN would achieve this.____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> 8.(e) talks about separation of PTI, but isn’t it the IANA
> >> functions operation that is separated from PTI? And if that
> >> happens, there is no reason to do other than wind PTI up as its
> >> assets are transferred to the new operator.____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
> >> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>>
> >> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> >> *Sent:* 12 August 2015 13:14
> >> *To:* Julie Hammer
> >> *Cc:* At-Large Staff; cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> >> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>; Accountability Cross Community
> >> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> Julie,____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> I think you're right. As this was passed on to the whole CWG and
> >> CCWG without any prior review by any subcommittees, it should be
> >> considered subject to review and comment.____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> Greg Shatan
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, August 12, 2015, Julie Hammer
> >> <julie.hammer at bigpond.com <mailto:julie.hammer at bigpond.com> <mailto:julie.hammer at bigpond.com <mailto:julie.hammer at bigpond.com>>>
> >> wrote:____
> >>
> >> Hi Leon,____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> Many thanks for sharing this matrix. One thing that struck me
> >> when having a quick look through it was that Sidley have listed at
> >> Item 2 (d) the following as Subject Matter for a new Fundamental
> >> Bylaw:____
> >>
> >> "Requirement that the ICANN community approve or veto the IANA
> >> Budget after it has been approved by the ICANN Board but before it
> >> has come into effect." ____
> >>
> >> In my understanding, the proposed power was to consider and reject
> >> (or veto) the IANA Budget, but there should be no requirement for
> >> the ICANN Community to come together and actually approve the IANA
> >> budget. I had not thought that the Community Mechanism was
> >> intended to be used for such a purpose (ie approving strategic
> >> plans, operating plans or budgets).____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> I believe the relevant paragraph from the CCWG 2nd draft report is
> >> para 381 on page 58:____
> >>
> >> __379. __381 Accordingly, this new power
> >> would give the community the ability to consider strategic and
> >> operating plans and budgets (both ICANN general and, separately,
> >> with respect to the budget for the IANA Functions) after they are
> >> approved by the Board (but before they come into effect) and
> >> reject them. The rejection could be of the proposed ICANN Budget
> >> or the IANA Budget, or of a proposed ICANN-wide strategic or
> >> operating plan. The petition would state which Budget or plan was
> >> being subject to veto. A separate petition is required for each
> >> Budget or plan being challenged. ____
> >>
> >> Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but I don’t think the
> >> word ‘approve’ should appear in 2 (d) in the Sidley matrix.____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> Cheers, Julie____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> On 12 Aug 2015, at 1:56 am, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
> >> <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>> wrote:____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> Hi all,____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> I am forwarding this matrix that the CWG is working on as it is of
> >> the interest of this group as well and to help us continue shaping
> >> our work forward.____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> The matrix is intended to help identify those bylaws that, from
> >> the scope of the CWG, would need to be considered fundamental.
> >> This, of course, is independent from the work we need to do but
> >> provides an example on what we can begin crafting ourselves.____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> If you want to keep being in the matrix, swallow the blue pill. If
> >> you want to work on shaping the matrix, swallow the red pill.
> >> (geek joke)____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> Best regards,____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> León____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> Inicio del mensaje reenviado:____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> *De: *"Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan at sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com>>____
> >>
> >> *Asunto: [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix*____
> >>
> >> *Fecha: *11 de agosto de 2015 9:43:05 GMT-5____
> >>
> >> *Para: *Client Committee <cwg-client at icann.org <mailto:cwg-client at icann.org>>____
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> Dear All,____
> >>
> >> ____
> >>
> >> Attached is a draft matrix summarizing the proposed ICANN bylaw
> >> changes that relate to CWG’s final proposal. ____
> >>
> >> ____
> >>
> >> Could you please forward to the CWG?____
> >>
> >> ____
> >>
> >> Thanks____
> >>
> >> ____
> >>
> >> *SHARON* *FLANAGAN*
> >> Partner____
> >>
> >> *Sidley Austin LLP
> >> *555 California Street
> >> Suite 2000
> >> San Francisco, CA 94104
> >> +1.415.772.1271 <tel:%2B1.415.772.1271> <tel:%2B1.415.772.1271>
> >> sflanagan at sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com>
> >> www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com/> <http://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.
> >>
> >> ****************************************************************************************************____
> >>
> >> <209588099_1.pdf>____
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Cwg-client mailing list
> >> Cwg-client at icann.org <mailto:Cwg-client at icann.org>
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client____ <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client____>
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at 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 at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at 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 at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at 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 at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150819/fa6fc7b5/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list