<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I think #3 is a bit of a fantasy. The idea of all the lawyers sitting in a room, collaborating and singing Kumbaya is not likely to happen. There will inevitably be a back and forth between the sets of lawyers, and each set will need to confer with their clients. Think ping-pong, not tango.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Mathieu Weill <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Greg,<br>
<br>
Please note that a slightly amended version has been circulated for
consideration during this CCWG call. <br>
<br>
Best<br>
Mathieu<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<div>Le 30/06/2015 07:45, Greg Shatan a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">My comments below.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:36 PM,
Bruce Tonkin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" target="_blank">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello
All,<br>
<br>
Just following up on my comments during the CCWG session
this afternoon on the drafting process.<br>
<br>
I recommend considering the following approach:<br>
<br>
- Identify a sub-team of the CCWG to write a short brief
for each bylaws change required - including any draft text
that has been developed so far<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">
GSS: Agree that we should have a
brief/specifications/terms of reference/term sheet that
the CCWG supports, and that the drafting should be done
(and to a fair extent has already been done) by a
smaller group, since drafting in a group of 40 would be
painful and inefficient.</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
- Get the CCWG external council to confirm that the brief
is achievable and is consistent with their earlier advice<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">
GSS: Agree that we should have counsel review what we
prepare.</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
- Get the ICANN legal team to draft bylaws changes
consistent with the brief<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">
GSS: Neither agree nor disagree. Whichever legal team
prepares the first draft, the other legal team will do
what is necessary to deal with issues they note in that
draft. Twas ever thus. There may be a modest cost
savings if ICANN inside counsel prepares the first
draft, but reviewing the first draft will still be a
reasonable amount of work for CCWG's counsel.</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
- the CCWG sub-team confirms that the language meets the
brief<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">
GSS: Here is where I most decidedly disagree. We are
preparing legal instruments here, with language that
needs to be prepared to a particular standard and with a
particular style and vocabulary. If ICANN legal
prepares the first draft, it will need to go back to
CCWG counsel to be reviewed and revised prior to or at
the same time as the CCWG itself reviews the draft. I
expect ICANN would do the same if we operate in the
other direction. In any event, first drafts are rarely,
if ever, the final draft; there is always some
improvement necessary, even if the parties have agreed
completely on their intentions (which is also not that
common). It's just the nature of the activity. Of
course, the further apart the parties are on substance,
the more "rounds" of drafts it takes to come to rest.
But, in any event we can expect at least a couple of
rounds of drafts before ICANN and the CCWG are satisfied
with the result. And we clearly need our counsel to
take a leading role from their point of view in "doing
the necessary" to make sure the by-law drafts meet the
needs and expectations of the CCWG. (Brief soapbox
moment: There is as much skill, knowledge and experience
involved in the art of legal drafting as there is in any
other sophisticated professional activity. The fact
that it does not involve manual or numerical dexterity
seems to make people think that laymen are more likely
to do a credible job of legal drafting, than they would
performing surgery or plotting the trajectory of a
rocket. DIY legal drafting is a rotten idea, with its
own costs and consequences, though admittedly not
physical death or destruction -- at least not
immediately.)</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
- where necessary (e.g. if the CCWG sub team does not
believe that the draft meets the requirements) get the
CCWG external council to confirm that the draft is
consistent with the objectives of the brief (use this
last step when necessary as we are using public funds to
pay for the extra advice and we should be prudent with
expenditure)<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">
GSS: I would not characterize this as "extra advice" --
it is critical, core and necessary advice. The bylaws
are one of the points of legal execution; it would be
highly imprudent to shy away from using counsel at this
point, of all points. And the job of outside counsel is
not merely to confirm the draft is consistent with the
objectives of the brief; it's their job to help us get
it right from the CCWG's point of view. As for the use
of "public funds" -- perhaps this is a semantic
difference, but I think of "public funds" as those
appropriated and expended by governments, and we heard
numerous times in BA that ICANN is not a government.
Semantics aside, all involved are using the same funds,
by whatever name, and I hope that ICANN legal, if it
takes the first draft, will keep that in mind as they
draft so that they come as close as possible to the
brief of the CCWG, so that the CCWG's counsel does not
have too revise too much when it undertakes its review.
"Public funds" aside, what is most important is that we
are operating in the "public eye" and keenly aware of
the "public trust" that has been placed on the CCWG just
as much as it has been placed on ICANN-the-corporation.
This is an inflection point in ICANN's history -- not
getting it right will have much greater costs --
financial, reputational, governance-wise, etc. -- than a
few hours of careful legal review and revision process
of the legal tools (i.e., the bylaws) that we are using
to achieve a great deal of the objectives that we will
have spent thousands and thousands of unpaid and paid
hours, a good deal of money, and a great deal of blood,
sweat and tears to accomplish. This is not the time to
become gun-shy about getting appropriate legal advice --
there is far too much riding on this part of the process
to do so. </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Consistent
with the above, we have every responsibility to work in
a cost-effective and efficient manner with counsel and
to demand the same from them. Perversely, it's my
experience that trying to cut corners with counsel tends
to end up costing more and taking more time and/or
achieving a less desirable result than staying the
course with counsel.</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
- once the CCWG sub team is happy with the text - it
should be reviewed by the whole CCWG, before posting for
public comment<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">
GSS: I think it goes without saying that the CCWG will
need to review and support everything that is going to
be posted for public comment, including without
limitation the bylaws. That said, there's no harm in
saying it. </div>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
For example, you could write a short brief on the changes
required to incorporate the AoC reviews. This could
include simply a cut and paste of the relevant AoC text -
along with any tweeks agreed within the CCWG - maybe
changing the proposed timing of reviews, or perhaps the
membership of the review team etc.<br>
<br>
- ICANN legal can then draft language for the bylaws that
is consistent across the whole bylaws document<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">
GSS: I expect that consistency across the bylaws -- both
proposed and existing -- will be an element of drafting
and review at every step along the way. That said, I'm
sure that when the individual pieces all come to rest,
there will be an overall review by ICANN legal and CCWG
counsel focused on consistency so that both ICANN legal
and the CCWG are satisfied that any inconsistencies or
unintended consequences have been dealt with. After
all, we are all equally invested in getting it right.</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bruce Tonkin<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">
Best regards,</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Greg
</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
- <br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><pre cols="72">--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: <a href="tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006" value="+33139308306" target="_blank">+33 1 39 30 83 06</a>
<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
</pre>
</font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>