<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div>Thank you very much for your kind comments</div><div>In view of the reactions and feedback, I have modified my comments as follows</div><div><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:8pt">Dear holly,</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:8pt">Thank you very much for your clear legal view:</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:8pt">I <span> </span>submitted exactly in one of message to the mailing list several weeks ago the same argument <span> </span>that that you described in this message that</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:8pt">Article 1 of Fundamental Bylaws including Mission <span> </span>is the supreme / highest level of text in the ICANN text and thus issues such as MoU which as it self-described itself is merely </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:8pt">Memorandum and nothing more than that should not appear in the highest level of the ICANN TEXT.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:8pt"><font color="#000000">I went even beyond your suggestion in arguing that cross reference in the legal document would almost provide the same level of the main text to the crossed referenced text.</font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:8pt"><font color="#000000">I therefore suggest , should we all agree by consensus to cross reference ANY MoU, paraphrase that by a term;” See also MoU XXX as an informative reference thus would not give a formative status to any MoU due to the fact that MoU does not have any mandatory status as it is a “ Memorandum of </font><span style="color:red">Understanding</span><font color="#000000"> only. Something which has a memorandum status is just for memorandum “aide memoire “, In French, and nothing more than that.</font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:8pt"><font color="#000000">I do not wish to argue with anybody as I accept many thing that are not disturbing but I can not agree that mandatory legal terms / provisions contains or cross reference to non mandatory provisions due to the fact that the non-mandatory provision such as MoU may change with time thus the mandatory provisions would be subordinated with something which could easily change such as MoU.</font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:8pt"><font color="#000000">Kavouss </font></span></p><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:8pt"><font color="#000000">Please thus read the previous message Void </font></span></p><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:8pt"><font color="#000000">Regards</font></span></p><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:8pt"><font color="#000000">Kavouss</font></span></p></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-01-18 23:47 GMT+01:00 Avri Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
I have a question.<br>
<br>
The current bylaws contain provisions for GNSO Operating Procedures<br>
<br>
> X.3.4. The GNSO Council is responsible for managing the policy<br>
> development process of the GNSO. It shall adopt such procedures (the<br>
> "GNSO Operating Procedures") as it sees fit to carry out that<br>
> responsibility, provided that such procedures are approved by a<br>
> majority vote of each House. The GNSO Operating Procedures shall be<br>
> effective upon the expiration of a twenty-one (21) day public comment<br>
> period, and shall be subject to Board oversight and review<br>
<br>
Understanding that this is somewhat a different case than the ASO MOU,<br>
is it possible to do something that points to the current MOU and<br>
includes the condition under which the referenced MOU changes?<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<span><br>
<br>
On 18-Jan-16 15:27, Gregory, Holly wrote:<br>
><br>
> Dear CCWG ACCT Co-Chairs, Members, Participants and ICANN Staff,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> We are writing to raise with you a high-level concern regarding the<br>
> proposal to reference the 2004 Address Supporting Organization MOU<br>
> (the “MOU”) in ICANN’s Mission Statement (Bylaws Article I, Section<br>
> 1), which was discussed on CCWG-ACCT Call #77 (January 14).<br>
><br>
> In defining ICANN’s role in coordinating allocation and assignment at<br>
> the top-most level of IP and AS numbers, Annex 05 from the Third<br>
> Proposal provided as follows: “ICANN’s Mission is described in the ASO<br>
> MoU between ICANN and RIRs.”<br>
><br>
</span>> /We //recommend against trying to further define ICANN’s Mission<br>
<span>> through cross-reference to the MOU in the Bylaws and suggest that any<br>
> specific language that you deem of critical import to defining ICANN’s<br>
> Mission be actually incorporated. (We could not find a clear<br>
</span>> statement of the ICANN Mission in the MOU.)/<br>
<div><div class="h5">><br>
> As a general matter, referencing all or part of an external agreement<br>
> in bylaws presents a number of problems. For example:<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> · The bylaws may require a different process, parties, and<br>
> threshold for amendment than the referenced agreement, and it is<br>
> unclear legally which rules apply. This problem is certainly present<br>
> here. Although the Mission will be a fundamental bylaw, the parties<br>
> to the MOU could amend it on their own, circumventing the fundamental<br>
> bylaw amendment process entirely. Alternatively, perhaps the MOU’s<br>
> amendment provisions would be superceded by the fundamental bylaw<br>
> amendment process. At a minimum, if the reference remains despite our<br>
> advice, this issue should be addressed explicitly.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> · Referencing an outside agreement in bylaws may have the<br>
> legal effect of incorporating it into the bylaws, putting all its<br>
> terms on an equal footing with the bylaws, which can create problems<br>
> if its provisions conflict with the bylaws in any way. This issue has<br>
> a greater chance of arising where an entire agreement is incorporated<br>
> by reference, and is clearly a problem here. For example, ICANN’s<br>
> Bylaws are ultimately governed by California law, but the MOU provides<br>
> that it will be governed by International Chamber of Commerce rules in<br>
> Bermuda. Again, if the reference remains despite our advice, the CCWG<br>
> should decide which document governs in case of conflict (either<br>
> generally or on a topic-by-topic basis).<br>
><br>
> · Although we generally recommend against it, clients have<br>
> insisted on incorporating an entire existing agreement in their<br>
> governing documents, essentially freezing the agreement as<br>
> incorporated. It was suggested on the CCWG call that the Bylaws could<br>
> reference the version of the MOU as of a specific date, excluding from<br>
> the Bylaws future amendments to the MOU unless the community amended<br>
> the Bylaws to update the reference in the Mission. While this<br>
> strategy partially solves one problem, it leads to others. Assuming<br>
> that the MOU incorporated in the Bylaws continues to evolve over time<br>
> outside of the Bylaws, there will be two versions of the MOU -- the<br>
> one in the Bylaws, and the one that documents the current<br>
> understandings between the ASO and ICANN. At a minimum, this would be<br>
> confusing; in a worst-case scenario, it could undermine the<br>
> enforceability of the post-reference MOU.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> · Any outside agreement to be referenced in bylaws must be<br>
> carefully reviewed to assess and address the sorts of consequences<br>
> noted above. We have briefly reviewed a version of the MOU, and note<br>
> that the MOU itself incorporates other documents by reference,<br>
> including the earlier 2003 version of the ICANN Bylaws, creating a<br>
> circularity in terms of providing legal advice on this provision in<br>
> the future.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> While we originally thought it might be possible to work around these<br>
> problems by inserting text from the MOU into the Bylaws describing<br>
> this aspect of ICANN’s Mission, after our brief review of the MOU, it<br>
> is not clear to us where or how it describes ICANN’s mission in any<br>
> narrative text. As we read it the MOU sets out processes and<br>
> mechanisms for developing policies but does not itself describe<br>
> substantive limits on ICANN or purport to define ICANN’s Mission.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Bylaws may of course include a process for developing a scope of<br>
> corporate activities within the bounds of a larger mission, and the<br>
> mission can be updated as appropriate to reflect developments that<br>
> come out of this process, but the process itself cannot logically<br>
> become part of the mission.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> We hope further CCWG discussion in light of our concern, regarding the<br>
> goal that the ASO and the community seek by referencing the MOU in the<br>
> Mission Statement, may provide a way forward without referencing the<br>
> MOU itself in the Bylaws.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Holly and Rosemary<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div>> *HOLLY J. GREGORY*<br>
<span>> Partner and Co-Chair<br>
> Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice<br>
><br>
><br>
</span>> *Sidley Austin LLP**<br>
> *<a href="tel:%2B1%20212%20839%205853" value="+12128395853">+1 212 839 5853</a><br>
> <a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a>><br>
<span>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ****************************************************************************************************<br>
> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is<br>
> privileged or confidential.<br>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and<br>
> any attachments and notify us<br>
> immediately.<br>
><br>
> ****************************************************************************************************<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</span><span>> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</span>---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>