<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">"duly taken into account" absolutely does not mean "followed."</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Nigel Roberts <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net" target="_blank">nigel@channelisles.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Paul is right to be concerned.<br>
<br>
'duly taken in to account' means 'followed'.<span class=""><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 24/01/16 21:32, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">
Paul,<br>
<br>
I was halfway through writing an email that said exactly that.<br>
<br>
This may be due to the lawyers re-interpreting "duly taken into account"<br>
in a way that I don't agree with and which I think is incorrect. We<br>
have used the term many times in discussing how we deal with public<br>
comments, and I have taken our meaning to be "we will consider it and<br>
give it our full attention, but without any presumption that we will<br>
adopt it." The additional language suggested by the lawyers as a<br>
"clarification" would actually be a substantial change, along the lines<br>
that you highlight. I would also note that this phrase has been in the<br>
Bylaws for many year without any ambiguity noted until now.<br>
<br>
Whatever the genesis of this problem, we need to reverse this creeping<br>
presumption.<br>
<br>
<br>
Greg<br>
<br>
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Paul Rosenzweig<br>
<<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br></span><span class="">
<mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Is anyone else concerned about the commentary to Annex 11. As I<br>
read our lawyer’s advice, we are now in the position of putting into<br>
place a presumption that the Board will not act inconsistent with<br>
GAC advice – which to me is more binding that making sure that the<br>
advice is duly taken into account. The latter implies that it may<br>
be taken account of and then diverged from, while the former<br>
suggests not. I am not questioning the lawyer’s conclusions.<br>
Rather I am suggesting that we have, mistakenly, created a situation<br>
where government influence is definitely increased. I cannot<br>
support that. More to the point I do not see how the NTIA will<br></span>
approve it ….____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
Paul____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
Paul Rosenzweig____<br>
<br>
<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com</a>> ____<br>
<br>
O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660" target="_blank">+1 (202) 547-0660</a> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>____<br>
<br>
M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650" target="_blank">+1 (202) 329-9650</a> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>____<br>
<br>
VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" value="+12027381739" target="_blank">+1 (202) 738-1739</a> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>____<br>
<br>
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066____<span class=""><br>
<br>
Link to my PGP Key<br></span>
<<a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9</a>>____<br>
<br>
<<a href="http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016</a>>____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
*From:*Gregory, Holly [mailto:<a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com" target="_blank">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com" target="_blank">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a>>]<br>
*Sent:* Sunday, January 24, 2016 7:24 AM<br>
*To:* 'Mathieu Weill' <<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a><span class=""><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>>>; '<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net" target="_blank">thomas@rickert.net</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net" target="_blank">thomas@rickert.net</a>>' <<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net" target="_blank">thomas@rickert.net</a><br></span>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net" target="_blank">thomas@rickert.net</a>>>; 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'<br>
<<a href="mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx" target="_blank">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx" target="_blank">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a>>>;<span class=""><br>
'<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>'<br>
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>>;<br>
'<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org" target="_blank">acct-staff@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org" target="_blank">acct-staff@icann.org</a>>'<br>
<<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org" target="_blank">acct-staff@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org" target="_blank">acct-staff@icann.org</a>>><br></span>
*Cc:* Sidley ICANN CCWG <<a href="mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com" target="_blank">sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com" target="_blank">sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com</a>>>; Greeley, Amy E.<br>
<<a href="mailto:AGreeley@sidley.com" target="_blank">AGreeley@sidley.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:AGreeley@sidley.com" target="_blank">AGreeley@sidley.com</a>>>; Grapsas, Rebecca<span class=""><br>
<<a href="mailto:rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com" target="_blank">rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com" target="_blank">rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com</a>>>;<br>
'<a href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com" target="_blank">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com" target="_blank">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a>>'<br>
<<a href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com" target="_blank">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com" target="_blank">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a>>><br></span>
*Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9,<br>
10, 11____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
Dear CCWG ACCT Co-Chairs, Members, Participants and ICANN Staff, ____<br>
<br>
__ __<span class=""><br>
<br>
We are writing to raise with you the following issues that we<br>
identified in our high-level review of the above- referenced<br></span>
Annexes:____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
*_Annex 1 (GAC as Decisional Participant)_*: We did not have any<br>
high-level comments on this Annex.____<br>
<br>
*______*<br>
<br>
*_Annex 8 (Reconsideration)_*: With respect to the timing<span class=""><br>
requirements discussed in Paragraph 25 and elsewhere in the Annex,<br>
there appears to be some inconsistency: If the Board Governance<br>
Committee (BGC) takes its full 90 days to make a recommendation<br>
after receiving the request, the Board would not meet its 60 day<br>
timeline, and it would be tight for it to meet the 120 day time line<br>
(particularly if the requestor files a rebuttal to the BGC’s<br></span>
recommendation within 15 days of receipt). /We recommend that these<span class=""><br>
time frames be re-considered to remove the inconsistency, for<br>
example by deleting the language relating to Board action within 60<br>
days and, if necessary, providing the Board with additional time to<br></span>
consider the BGC recommendations/.____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
*_Annex 9 (AOC Reviews)_*: /We recommend that consideration be given<span class=""><br>
to further clarifying the Review Team provision in Paragraph 54 (1)<br>
to specify the type of “diversity” desired (geographic or otherwise)<br>
for Review Team members and (2) to state whether, in determining the<br>
composition of the members of the Review Teams they select, the<br>
group of chairs can solicit additional nominees or appoint less than<br>
21 members to avoid potential overrepresentation of particular ACs<br></span>
or SOs if some nominate less than 3 members./ ____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
*_Annex 10 (SO/AC Accountability)_*: We did not have any high-level<br>
comments on this Annex. ____<br>
<br>
*______*<br>
<br>
*_Annex 11 (GAC Advice)_*: ____<br>
<br>
__ __<span class=""><br>
<br>
We were asked to review the current Bylaws provision addressing GAC<br>
advice and determine whether the ambiguities we identified in our<br>
review of the proposed revisions to this provision are new or stem<br>
from ambiguities under the current Bylaws text. We have determined<br>
that there are ambiguities under the current Bylaws text, which<br></span>
provides as follows:____<br>
<br>
*ICANN Bylaws Article XI, Section 2.1.j.*The advice of the<span class=""><br>
Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be<br></span>
/duly taken into account/, both in the formulation and adoption of<span class=""><br>
policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an<br>
action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory<br>
Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the<br>
reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. The Governmental<br>
Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith<br>
and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable<br></span>
solution.____<br>
<br>
__ __<span class=""><br>
<br>
The phrase “duly taken into account” is ambiguous, but reading it<br>
together with the next sentence, which requires that the Board<br>
follow a specific procedure before taking actions inconsistent with<br>
GAC advice, we believe the best interpretation of this phrase is to<br>
mean “do not act inconsistently with.” Based on this<br></span>
interpretation, /we recommend the following clarification<span class=""><br>
(underlined) to the first sentence of this Bylaws provision: “The<br></span>
advice of the Gov//ernmental Advisory Committee on public policy<span class=""><br>
matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation<br></span>
and adoption of policies_, and**ICANN shall not act inconsistently<br>
with that advice except as otherwise provided in this paragraph_/.” ____<br>
<br>
__ __<span class=""><br>
<br>
We also note that there is no meaningful legal distinction between<br>
voting and determining to take an action, as some commenters have<br>
suggested. The only way the Board can legally determine or decide<br></span>
anything under California law is by voting. ____<br>
<br>
__ __<span class=""><br>
<br>
The proposed addition to the current Bylaws text is underlined<br></span>
below:____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
*ICANN Bylaws Article XI, Section 2.1.j.*The advice of the<span class=""><br>
Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be<br>
duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of<br>
policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an<br>
action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory<br>
Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the<br></span>
reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. _Any Governmental<span class=""><br>
Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory<br>
Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting<br>
decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal<br>
objection, may only be rejected by a vote of 2/3 of the Board,<br></span>
and_ the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will<span class=""><br>
then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to<br></span>
find a mutually acceptable solution.____<br>
<br>
__ __<span class=""><br>
<br>
Based on our interpretation of the current Bylaws text, described<br>
above, we believe this proposed provision results in the following<br></span>
process:____<br>
<br>
__1.__If GAC provides advice (whether by a full GAC consensus or a<span class=""><br>
lesser approval threshold), the ICANN Board must “duly take[] into<br>
account” that advice -- i.e., ICANN must not act inconsistently with<br></span>
that advice, unless #2 and/or #3 below apply. ____<br>
<br>
__2.__If GAC provides advice (whether by a full GAC consensus or a<span class=""><br>
lesser approval threshold), and the ICANN Board decides to take an<br>
action inconsistent with that advice, the ICANN Board must first<br></span>
give GAC notice and provide a rationale. ____<br>
<br>
__·__In addition, f the GAC advice was by a full GAC consensus, the<span class=""><br>
ICANN Board may decide to take an action inconsistent with that<br>
advice only by a vote of 2/3 of the ICANN Board. If that 2/3<br>
threshold is reached, GAC and ICANN must then try in good faith to<br>
find a mutually acceptable solution. If the 2/3 threshold is not<br>
reached, ICANN is required to act consistently with the consensus<br></span>
GAC advice. ____<br>
<br>
/We recommend that consideration be given to further clarifying this<span class=""><br>
process, and we agree with commenters who have concluded that the<br>
proposed provision does not impose an affirmative obligation upon<br>
ICANN’s Board to vote on GAC consensus advice every time that advice<br></span>
is provided/. ____<span class=""><br>
<br>
We note that additional Bylaws language is being proposed to clarify<br>
that, in any case, the Board needs to act in compliance with the<br>
ICANN Bylaws. Thus, if the Board were to determine that following<br>
GAC advice would result in non-compliance with the Bylaws, the Board<br>
should be able to reject the advice (with a majority or two-thirds<br>
vote, depending on whether the GAC advice was consensus advice) and<br></span>
explain its position to GAC. ____<span class=""><br>
<br>
Please let us know if we can assist in any way with your further<br></span>
consideration of these issues.____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
Kind regards,____<br>
<br>
Holly and Rosemary____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
*HOLLY**J. GREGORY*<span class=""><br>
Partner and Co-Chair<br>
Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice<br>
<br></span>
*Sidley Austin LLP**<br>
*<a href="tel:%2B1%20212%20839%205853" value="+12128395853" target="_blank">+1 212 839 5853</a> <tel:%2B1%20212%20839%205853><br>
<a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com" target="_blank">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com" target="_blank">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a>>____<span class=""><br>
<br>
Image removed by sender.<br>
<a href="http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png</a><br></span>
<<a href="http://www.sidley.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.sidley.com/</a>>*SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP*____<br>
<br>
____<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
__ __<br>
<br>
____<span class=""><br>
<br>
****************************************************************************************************<br>
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that<br>
is 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>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br></span>
<mailto:<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><span class=""><br>
<br>
<br>
<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>
<br>
</span></blockquote><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
_______________________________________________<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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>