[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - V2.0 of comments on draft Bylaws - 24 hour Final Feedback by CCWG-Accountability
Mathieu Weill
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Fri May 13 06:33:43 UTC 2016
Greg, All,
We have confirmed with lawyers that your formulation is ok. We will fix it.
Apologies for the misunderstanding.
Best
Mathieu
De : Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
Envoyé : vendredi 13 mai 2016 07:37
À : Greg Shatan
Cc : accountability-cross-community at icann.org; Mathieu Weill
Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - V2.0 of comments on draft
Bylaws - 24 hour Final Feedback by CCWG-Accountability
>From the minutes
"Bylaws section 1.1.(c), issue with language - Suggested fix GShatan: The
simplest solution would be to remove this clause and end the sentence with
"authority." That removes the issue of "What does "such regulations" refer
to?" I support this fix. TR supported. General agreement to include this
point in CCWG comments."
Please can you help me understand what part of the above is not implemented.
I like to state that *unless* the legal team confirms otherwise, we stick to
what they have recommended.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 13 May 2016 06:01, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
Mathieu,
I don't believe you are correct on this point. I looked back at the both
mark-ups provided by Sidley/Adler and there was no substantive comment on
this point in either draft. The fix in my email reflects the outcome of the
last CCWG call. The origin of the Recommendation in the draft is obscure,
and does not come from the CCWG. Furthermore, the Recommendation as drafted
does not make sense. The appropriate action to take is to execute what was
agreed on the call, which is what's reflected in my email.
Greg
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
wrote:
Greg,
I believe we also received a comment on this from our lawyers, and we felt
safer to go with our lawyer’s version.
The difference seems to be in specifically mentioning “governmentally
authorized regulatory” authority.
Mathieu
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] De la part de Greg
Shatan
Envoyé : mercredi 11 mai 2016 21:02
À : Bernard Turcotte
Cc : Accountability Cross Community
Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - V2.0 of comments on draft
Bylaws - 24 hour Final Feedback by CCWG-Accountability
This version fails to take into account my comment of May 9, which I will
copy and paste here for ease of reference. Simply put, the Recommendation in
this draft (as in the first draft) is not what we agreed to in the meeting.
It also fails to solve the problem. Please correct the Comment as set forth
below in blue. Thanks!
Greg
There's a problem with the recommendation for Section 1.1(c). Specifically,
the "Recommendation" is incorrect (based on both the "Issue" stated just
above it and the call we had last week). The decision of the group was to
eliminate the second clause (beginning with "and nothing..."), leaving only
the first clause "For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any
governmentally authorized regulatory authority." The proposed
Recommendation gets this almost exactly backward, deleting the first clause
and leaving the second. This needs to be fixed as set forth below.
Currently the section reads as follows:
1. Draft Bylaws section 1.1 (c)
1.1. Text from the Bylaws: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and
restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the
content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of
Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any
governmentally authorized regulatory authority, and nothing in the preceding
sentence should be construed to suggest that it does have authority to
impose such regulations.”
1.2. Issue: The last clause of the last sentence: "nothing in the preceding
sentence should be construed to suggest that it does have authority to
impose such regulations" Appears to create some ambiguity.
1.3. Recommendation: Remove this clause and end the sentence with
"authority." The text would now read: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e.,
impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique
identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the
express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in the
preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that ICANN does have such
authority.”
Instead, the Recommendation should be changed to read as follows:
1.3. Recommendation: Remove this clause and end the sentence with
"authority." The text would now read: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e.,
impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique
identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the
express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not
hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority.”
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Bernard Turcotte
<turcotte.bernard at gmail.com> 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
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/20160513/0c101dd4/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list