[CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9, 10, 11

Salaets, Ken ksalaets at itic.org
Wed Jan 27 15:39:34 UTC 2016


Finally dug out of the blizzard of snow and now wading through the blizzard of email.  Sounds like the “duly taken into account” thread has run its course, but “duly considered” is what we mean so why not just say it?

Cheers,

Ken

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 3:07 AM
To: paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com; sdelbianco at netchoice.org; holly.gregory at sidley.com; malcolm at linx.net; gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Cc: ICANN at adlercolvin.com; thomas at rickert.net; accountability-cross-community at icann.org; acct-staff at icann.org; sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com; AGreeley at sidley.com; rebecca.grapsas at sidley.com
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9, 10, 11

That seems sensible – don’t fix it if it ain’t broken, right?

Regards

Jorge

Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Paul Rosenzweig
Gesendet: Montag, 25. Januar 2016 17:07
An: 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco at netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>>; 'Gregory, Holly' <holly.gregory at sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>; 'Malcolm Hutty' <malcolm at linx.net<mailto:malcolm at linx.net>>; 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Cc: 'ICANN' <ICANN at adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>; 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>; acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>; 'Sidley ICANN CCWG' <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>>; 'Greeley, Amy E.' <AGreeley at sidley.com<mailto:AGreeley at sidley.com>>; 'Grapsas, Rebecca' <rebecca.grapsas at sidley.com<mailto:rebecca.grapsas at sidley.com>>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9, 10, 11

+1 with Steve.  Still not sure I like Annex 11 as written even, but very much sure that the pre-existing ambiguity can be tolerated, I think ..

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>
[cid:image001.png at 01D158EF.02940C60]<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016>

From: Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 10:08 AM
To: Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory at sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>; 'Malcolm Hutty' <malcolm at linx.net<mailto:malcolm at linx.net>>; 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Cc: 'ICANN' <ICANN at adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>; 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>; acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>; Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>>; Greeley, Amy E. <AGreeley at sidley.com<mailto:AGreeley at sidley.com>>; Grapsas, Rebecca <rebecca.grapsas at sidley.com<mailto:rebecca.grapsas at sidley.com>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9, 10, 11

As Paul noted, the phrase “duly taken in to account” has been in the bylaws for over a decade.  It is not part of our Recommendation 11 changes, which are designed to reserve the board’s obligation to “try to find a mutually acceptable solution” ONLY for GAC advice that is approved without a formal objection from any country.

I don’t think our lawyers have made a strong case that we must change our Rec 11 to modify exiting bylaws to resolve any pre-existing ambiguity.

The rest of the lawyers advice is helpful in confirming our understanding that there is no meaningful distinction between' voting’ and ‘determining to take an action’.    And our lawyers have confirmed what I understood to be the process that would result from our Rec 11 text.  Highlighted below )

Below I have pasted the lawyer’s memo so it again part of this thread.

From Holly and Rosemary:

Annex 11 (GAC Advice):

We were asked to review the current Bylaws provision addressing GAC advice and determine whether the ambiguities we identified in our review of the proposed revisions to this provision are new or stem from ambiguities under the current Bylaws text. We have determined that there are ambiguities under the current Bylaws text, which provides as follows:
ICANN Bylaws Article XI, Section 2.1.j. The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. The Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.

The phrase “duly taken into account” is ambiguous, but reading it together with the next sentence, which requires that the Board follow a specific procedure before taking actions inconsistent with GAC advice, we believe the best interpretation of this phrase is to mean “do not act inconsistently with.”  Based on this interpretation, we recommend the following clarification (underlined) to the first sentence of this Bylaws provision:  “The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies, and ICANN shall not act inconsistently with that advice except as otherwise provided in this paragraph.”

We also note that there is no meaningful legal distinction between  voting and determining to take an action, as some commenters have suggested.  The only way the Board can legally determine or decide anything under California law is by voting.

The proposed addition to the current Bylaws text is underlined below:

ICANN Bylaws Article XI, Section 2.1.j. The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of 2/3 of the Board, and the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.

Based on our interpretation of the current Bylaws text, described above, we believe this proposed provision results in the following process:

1.    If GAC provides advice (whether by a full GAC consensus or a lesser approval threshold), the ICANN Board must “duly take[] into account” that advice -- i.e., ICANN must not act inconsistently with that advice, unless #2 and/or #3 below apply.

2.    If GAC provides advice (whether by a full GAC consensus or a lesser approval threshold), and the ICANN Board decides  to take an action inconsistent with that advice, the ICANN Board must first give GAC notice and provide a rationale.

·       In addition, f the GAC  advice was by a full GAC consensus, the ICANN Board may decide to  take an action inconsistent with that advice only by a vote of 2/3 of the ICANN Board. If that 2/3 threshold is reached, GAC and ICANN must then try in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution.  If the 2/3 threshold is not reached, ICANN is required to act consistently with the consensus GAC advice.

We recommend that consideration be given to further clarifying this process, and we agree with commenters who have concluded that the proposed provision does not impose an affirmative obligation upon ICANN’s Board to vote on GAC consensus advice every time that advice is provided.

We note that additional Bylaws language is being proposed to clarify that, in any case, the Board needs to act in compliance with the ICANN Bylaws.  Thus, if the Board were to determine that following GAC advice would result in non-compliance with the Bylaws, the Board should be able to reject the advice (with a majority or two-thirds vote, depending on whether the GAC advice was consensus advice) and explain its position to GAC.
Please let us know if we can assist in any way with your further consideration of these issues.



From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory at sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>
Date: Monday, January 25, 2016 at 9:46 AM
To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>, 'Malcolm Hutty' <malcolm at linx.net<mailto:malcolm at linx.net>>, 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Cc: 'ICANN' <ICANN at adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>, "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>>, "Greeley, Amy E." <AGreeley at sidley.com<mailto:AGreeley at sidley.com>>, "Grapsas, Rebecca" <rebecca.grapsas at sidley.com<mailto:rebecca.grapsas at sidley.com>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9, 10, 11

Dear All,

We were asked whether the current bylaw language "duly taken into account" is ambiguous.  We concluded that it is ambiguous and that, especially when read in the context of the remaining language of the bylaw provision requiring a specific process should the Board not follow GAC advice, the language is susceptible to an interpretation that many of you do not support (as apparent in the many emails our comment generated). Since it is ambiguous, it is also subject to other interpretations.  We have no position on the substantive issue of what impact GAC advice should have.  We recommend that work be undertaken to remove the ambiguity.

Kind regards, Holly



Sent with Good (www.good.com<http://www.good.com>)

________________________________
From: Paul Rosenzweig
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 08:09:13 AM
To: 'Malcolm Hutty'; 'Greg Shatan'
Cc: 'ICANN'; 'Thomas Rickert'; accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>; acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>; Sidley ICANN CCWG; Greeley, Amy E.; Grapsas, Rebecca
Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9, 10, 11
Weighing back in, a few more thoughts:  First, the "duly taken into account"
language has been in the bylaws for quite some time -- and it has been
implemented in taking GAC advice into account (or not) over that time
without causing any appreciable problem.  Second, changing, "taken into
account" to interpret it as "not act inconsistently" is a substantive change
in the standard to be applied by the Board in considering the GAC advice
and, as Malcolm points out, would have second order effects on an IRP review
of the Board's actions in ways that are likely to be confusing.  Third,
without doubt, the idea of "not act inconsistently" gives greater privilege
to GAC advice than it currently has.

For these reasons, I believe that, notwithstanding my great respect for the
Sidley -Adler team, we should reject this reinterpretation.  If they remain
convinced that "duly taken into account" is too ambiguous for a bylaw
(notwithstanding its provenance over the years) and that the phrase must be
changed then the reasonable options are words like "considered" or
"reviewed" or such ...

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key


-----Original Message-----
From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:malcolm at linx.net]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 4:57 AM
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>; Paul Rosenzweig
<paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>
Cc: ICANN <ICANN at adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>;
accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>; acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>; Sidley ICANN
CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>>; Greeley, Amy E. <AGreeley at sidley.com<mailto:AGreeley at sidley.com>>;
Grapsas, Rebecca <rebecca.grapsas at sidley.com<mailto:rebecca.grapsas at sidley.com>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9, 10, 11



On 24/01/2016 21:32, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Paul,
>
> I was halfway through writing an email that said exactly that.
>
> This may be due to the lawyers re-interpreting "duly taken into account"
> in a way that I don't agree with and which I think is incorrect.

I also agree that this would be a substantial change.

To support that, I would ask you to consider the follow, not unlikely,
scenario.

The GAC has advised the Board to do something, but what it has advised is
not entirely clearly, and there is certainly ambiguity as to how it might be
implemented. The Board has then done something. A materially affected party,
unhappy with the Board's action and preferring an alternative that would
take a more extreme view of the GAC advice, challenges the action in the
IRP. The Board takes the view that it has taken the GAC's advice into
account and that what it has done is reasonably consistent with the GAC
advice; the complainant argues that the action was not consistent with it.

If the IRP finds that factually the complainant is correct to allege that
the Board's action was not consisistent with the GAC advice, what is the
consequence of that? It seems to vary according to which standard we choose:

- If the current standard applies, that the Board "duly take into account"
GAC advice, the IRP may still find that the Board did do that:
since they noted the GAC's advice, considered it, and believed (albeit
incorrectly) that what they were doing constituted a reasonably
implementation of it, it is hard to say they did not meet this standard.
The IRP will however order the Board that to bring itself back into
compliance with the bylaws it must notify the GAC that it has acted
inconsistently, and try to find a mutually acceptable solution. The action,
however, may stand: a solution need not necessarily involve cancelling the
action, but might be found through supplementing the action with another.

- If Holly's standard applies, that the Board "must not act inconsistently"
with GAC advice, then the mere finding that the Board has acted
inconsistently invalidates that decision. The action must be quashed, if it
is possible to do so; failure to do so would consistute perpetuating the
bylaws breach.

This is a material change, that may significantly affect the outcome.

Personally, I do not believe this change is needed or desirable. For that
reason, I respectfully disagree with accepting Holly's advice on this
particular case.

Kind Regards,

Malcolm.

--
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog  London
Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
       Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA



****************************************************************************************************
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.

****************************************************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160127/28694fc4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2849 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160127/28694fc4/image001-0001.png>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list