[CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7

Tue Apr 12 13:49:05 UTC 2016

Dear Mr Satan
'Whenever ,there is no apple, the issue you have raised "Indeed, this has
nothing to do with the "GAC Carve out," which is intended to deal with "two
bites at the apple" issues only"is senseless.  For Approval of Bylaws GAC
like other constituency has the power to exercise its rights .There is no
first bit that prohibit GAC to participate in exercising that power( the
first and the last bit)
You totally misunderstood the process because of your antigac sentiment
which blut as soon as any thing reklating to GAC comes to the discussion.
Your supported in part of the private scooter have the same
wrong impression.
Read the Carve-out in recs. 1 and 2 .Approval of ICANN CHANGES TO THE
FUNDAMENTAL bylaws was not based on any advice or recommendation from any
SO/AC.
Because you are mo concentrated on one single thought in the world and
ignoring other wide aspects of the legal terms you make such a wrong
interpretations

.

2016-04-12 15:37 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:

> I agree with Jordan and Jorge.  We need to be clear that we are neither
> expanding nor restricting the "GAC Carveout" beyond that in the Proposal.
> Indeed, this has nothing to do with the "GAC Carveout," which is intended
> to deal with "two bites at the apple" issues only.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> [image: http://hilweb1/images/signature.jpg]
>
>
>
>
> *Gregory S. Shatan | Partner*McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
>
> 245 Park Avenue, 27th Floor | New York, New York 10167
> T: 212-609-6873
> F: 212-416-7613
> gshatan @mccarter.com | www.mccarter.com
>
> BOSTON | HARTFORD | STAMFORD | NEW YORK | NEWARK
> EAST BRUNSWICK | PHILADELPHIA  | WILMINGTON | WASHINGTON, DC
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Schaefer, Brett <
> Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org> wrote:
>
>> Alan,
>>
>>
>>
>> The IETF has never expressed any interest in participating in the EC nor
>> was it discussed to any extent that I can recall. That is not the case with
>> the GAC.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Brett
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> 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
>>
>> *From:* Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:25 AM
>> *To:* Schaefer, Brett; Mathieu Weill; Accountability Cross Community
>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of
>> Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
>>
>>
>>
>> The CCWG was NOT silent. It said that the EC had the power and the GAC is
>> defined as part of the EC.
>>
>> That notwithstanding, if the removal power were granted solely to those
>> who vote for the selection of NomCom appointees, then the IETF would have
>> to be part of the decisional group that removes NomCom appointed directors.
>> Something that was never even raised.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> At 12/04/2016 08:06 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
>>
>>
>> Co-chairs,
>>
>> I am opposed to this decision on Q29 for several reasons:
>>
>>
>>    1. The GAC does not vote for NOMCOM directors, and should not have a
>>    vote in their removal.
>>    2. It is inconsistent with how the CCWG draft treats individual
>>    SO/ACs with respect to their appointed directors. The SO/ACs voting on
>>    NOMCOM directors should have similar exclusive authority over their
>>    removal.
>>    3. The CCWG proposal is silent on this matter, we should not be
>>    inserting new powers for the GAC into the bylaws when they are not
>>    explicitly included in the CCWG draft.
>>
>>
>> I am also opposed procedurally.
>>
>> On the Board removal of directors discussion, we were told that even
>> though legally the EC had to approve the removals, that the CCWG draft was
>> silent of this, so we could not create a new power for the EC that would
>> infringe on Board powers in the current bylaws. Therefor the approval had
>> to be a rubber stamp.
>>
>> Here, the CCWG proposal is silent on whether the GAC should have a vote
>> on removing NOMCOM directors. The current bylaws specifically do not give
>> the GAC any vote on the approval or removal of NOMCOM directors. But we are
>> told that we must grant them such authority even though there is no legal
>> requirement for it as we know from the power of individual SO/AC to remove
>> their appointed directors.
>>
>> How are these two interpretations consistent? Either we add new powers
>> for the EC on Board decisions to remove directors or we do not add new
>> powers for the GAC on removing NOMCOM directors.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Brett
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> 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
>>
>> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
>> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mathieu
>> Weill
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:54 AM
>> *To:* Accountability Cross Community
>> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of
>> Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
>>
>> Forwarding also our lawyerâ€™s clarification on Q29 (please note that the
>> clarification on Q7 is redundant with the previous email).
>>
>> Best
>> Mathieu
>>
>> *De :* bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org [
>> mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org <bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org>] *De
>> la part de* Rosemary E. Fei via bylaws-coord
>> *EnvoyÃ© :* lundi 11 avril 2016 21:43
>> *Ã€ :* bylaws-coord at icann.org
>> *Cc :* ICANN-Adler; Daniel Halloran (daniel.halloran at icann.org ); Sidley
>> ICANN CCWG ( sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com); Amy Stathos (
>> amy.stathos at icann.org)
>> *Objet :* [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further
>> clarification request for Question 7
>>
>> Dear Bylaws Coordination group:
>>
>> Please see attached.  All three counsels have signed off on these
>> questions from counsel.  Pdf versions to follow.
>>
>> Rosemary and Holly
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> 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/20160412/9c600463/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6549 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160412/9c600463/image001-0001.jpg>