[CCWG-ACCT] FW: CCWG-Accountability - V2.0 of comments on draft Bylaws - 24 hour Final Feedback by CCWG-Accountability

[Rosemary E. Fei]

My apologies if you're getting this twice; I couldn't tell what list the reply I just sent actually went to.

Rosemary

From: Rosemary E. Fei
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 10:25 AM
To: CCWG-Listserv
Cc: ICANN-Adler; Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com)
Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - V2.0 of comments on draft Bylaws - 24 hour Final Feedback by CCWG-Accountability

Dear All:

As CCWG's legal counsel, we have no legal concerns if the CCWG prefers not to protect the existing Plans from challenge for exceeding ICANN's Mission, but I did want to clarify that, as drafted, ONLY the current versions of the Plans are so protected; NO renewals or future Plans, nor any amendments to the existing Plans, would have such protection under the language currently in the Draft Bylaws.

Our understanding was that these existing Plans are already in place and in operation, and had received appropriate community input when they were developed before the new Bylaws apply, so that grandfathering them eliminated a source of potential harmful disruption without any clear corresponding benefit, from the transition.  We viewed this as an implementation issue.  However, as I said above, if the CCWG prefers not to preclude challenges to the EXISTING Plans (and ONLY to the currently-existing Plans), we are happy to implement that change if so directed.

Rosemary
________________________________
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.orgOn<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.orgOn> Behalf OfAndrew Sullivan
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 12:10:54 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - V2.0 of comments on draft Bylaws - 24 hour Final Feedback by CCWG-Accountability
Hi,

I note this does not ask that 1.1(d)(ii) E not be removed. I think
that's the 5 year plans. How come that's ok to be grandfathered?
Note that it's not the 5 year plans that exist now, but the ones to be
adopted. I don't think the CCWG or CWG asked to grandfather those any
more than they did the various outside agreements. I heartily agree
with the point in the comments that "the implementation phase is not a
time to incorporate new provisions that were not in the
CCWG-Accountability Recommendations," and I think this is another
example of it.

Best regards,

A

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 02:53:37PM -0400, Bernard Turcotte wrote:
> All,
>
> Please find attached V2.0 of the CCWG-Accountability comments to be
> submitted to the ICANN public consultation on the New Bylaws.
>
> Modifications since V1.0 was circulated (There is no red-line comparison as
> too many things have changed. Rather we are providing a high level summary
> of changes here and are providing both versions V1.0 and 2.0 for ease of
> comparison):
>
>
> - V1.0 items 9 and 10 have been removed following consideration of legal
> counsel advice.
> - 9. Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 1.4(b)
> - 10. Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 2.2 (c) (i) (A)
> - V2.0 new item 9 is - Draft Bylaws Section 1.2(b)(viii) which was
> in the initial comments but not included in V1.0
> - V2.0 new items 10 to 14. These are a selection by the leadership from
> the list of issues submitted by Alan Greenberg this past weekend
> - 10. Draft Bylaws Section 7.12 (b)
> - 11. Draft Bylaws Section 4.6(b)(ii)
> -
>
> 12. Draft Bylaws Section 7.4(d)
> -
>
> 13. Draft Bylaws Section 7.11(a)(i)(B)
> -
>
> 14. Draft Bylaws Annex D, Section 1.4(b)(i-ii)
> - V2.0 New - Conclusion - short recap of Introduction
>
> The Final Feedback period is only intended to provide the
> CCWG-Accountability participants the opportunity to confirm there are no
> significant issues or gaps in this version and is not intended as an
> opportunity to raise new issues.
>
> The Feedback period will begin 20:00UTC today Wednesday May 11th and close
> 20:00UTC Thursday May 12th.
>
> Please reply to the list using the Subject line of this message to
> facilitate identifying your input (or simply REPLY to this email).
>
> The objective of the leadership is to finalize these and submit them before
> the weekend.
>
> Documents attached.
>
> Bernard Turcotte
> ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs - Mathieu Weill,
> Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez



> _______________________________________________
> 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>


--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
_______________________________________________
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/20160512/f5302ed2/attachment-0001.html>