<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Paul,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">I was halfway through writing an email that said exactly that. </font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">This may be due to the lawyers re-interpreting "duly taken into account" in a way that I don't agree with and which I think is incorrect. </font><font color="#000000" face="verdana, sans-serif">We have used the term many times in discussing how we deal with public comments, and I have taken our meaning to be "we will consider it and give it our full attention, but without any presumption that we will adopt it." The additional language suggested by the lawyers as a "clarification" would actually be a substantial change, along the lines that you highlight. I would also note that this phrase has been in the Bylaws for many year without any ambiguity noted until now.</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font color="#000000" face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font color="#000000" face="verdana, sans-serif">Whatever the genesis of this problem, we need to reverse this creeping presumption.</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><font color="#000000" face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font color="#000000" face="verdana, sans-serif">Greg</font></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Is anyone else concerned about the commentary to Annex 11. As I read our lawyer’s advice, we are now in the position of putting into place a presumption that the Board will not act inconsistent with GAC advice – which to me is more binding that making sure that the advice is duly taken into account. The latter implies that it may be taken account of and then diverged from, while the former suggests not. I am not questioning the lawyer’s conclusions. Rather I am suggesting that we have, mistakenly, created a situation where government influence is definitely increased. I cannot support that. More to the point I do not see how the NTIA will approve it ….<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Paul<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Paul Rosenzweig<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563c1">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a> <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660" target="_blank">+1 (202) 547-0660</a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650" target="_blank">+1 (202) 329-9650</a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" value="+12027381739" target="_blank">+1 (202) 738-1739</a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563c1">Link to my PGP Key</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d;text-decoration:none"><img border="0" width="578" height="87" src="cid:image001.png@01D156C1.9520D9D0"></span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Gregory, Holly [mailto:<a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com" target="_blank">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, January 24, 2016 7:24 AM<br><b>To:</b> 'Mathieu Weill' <<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>' <<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net" target="_blank">thomas@rickert.net</a>>; 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía' <<a href="mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx" target="_blank">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a>>; '<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>' <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>; '<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org" target="_blank">acct-staff@icann.org</a>' <<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org" target="_blank">acct-staff@icann.org</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> Sidley ICANN CCWG <<a href="mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com" target="_blank">sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com</a>>; Greeley, Amy E. <<a href="mailto:AGreeley@sidley.com" target="_blank">AGreeley@sidley.com</a>>; Grapsas, Rebecca <<a href="mailto:rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com" target="_blank">rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com</a>>; '<a href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com" target="_blank">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a>' <<a href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com" target="_blank">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a>><span class=""><br><b>Subject:</b> [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9, 10, 11<u></u><u></u></span></span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Dear CCWG ACCT Co-Chairs, Members, Participants and ICANN Staff, <u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">We are writing to raise with you the following issues that we identified in our high-level review of the above- referenced Annexes:<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Annex 1 (GAC as Decisional Participant)</span></u></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">: We did not have any high-level comments on this Annex.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span><u></u></span></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Annex 8 (Reconsideration)</span></u></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">: With respect to the timing requirements discussed in Paragraph 25 and elsewhere in the Annex, there appears to be some inconsistency: If the Board Governance Committee (BGC) takes its full 90 days to make a recommendation after receiving the request, the Board would not meet its 60 day timeline, and it would be tight for it to meet the 120 day time line (particularly if the requestor files a rebuttal to the BGC’s recommendation within 15 days of receipt). <i>We recommend that these time frames be re-considered to remove the inconsistency, for example by deleting the language relating to Board action within 60 days and, if necessary, providing the Board with additional time to consider the BGC recommendations</i>.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Annex 9 (AOC Reviews)</span></u></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">: <i>We recommend that consideration be given to further clarifying the Review Team provision in Paragraph 54 (1) to specify the type of “diversity” desired (geographic or otherwise) for Review Team members and (2) to state whether, in determining the composition of the members of the Review Teams they select, the group of chairs can solicit additional nominees or appoint less than 21 members to avoid potential overrepresentation of particular ACs or SOs if some nominate less than 3 members.</i> <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Annex 10 (SO/AC Accountability)</span></u></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">: We did not have any high-level comments on this Annex. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span><u></u></span></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Annex 11 (GAC Advice)</span></u></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">: <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">We were asked to review the current Bylaws provision addressing GAC advice and determine whether the ambiguities we identified in our review of the proposed revisions to this provision are new or stem from ambiguities under the current Bylaws text. We have determined that there are ambiguities under the current Bylaws text, which provides as follows:<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">ICANN Bylaws Article XI, Section 2.1.j.</span></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be <i>duly taken into account</i>, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. The Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">The phrase “duly taken into account” is ambiguous, but reading it together with the next sentence, which requires that the Board follow a specific procedure before taking actions inconsistent with GAC advice, we believe the best interpretation of this phrase is to mean “</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">do not act inconsistently <span style="color:black">with.” Based on this interpretation, <i>we recommend the following clarification (underlined) to the first sentence of this Bylaws provision: “The advice of the Gov</i></span><i>ernmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies<u>, and<b> </b>ICANN shall not act inconsistently with that advice except as otherwise provided in this paragraph</u></i>.” <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">We also note that there is no meaningful legal distinction between voting and determining to take an action, as some commenters have suggested. The only way the Board can legally determine or decide anything under California law is by voting. </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The proposed addition to the current Bylaws text is underlined below:<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">ICANN Bylaws Article XI, Section 2.1.j.</span></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. <u>Any Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of 2/3 of the Board, and</u> the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Based on our interpretation of the current Bylaws text, described above, we believe this proposed provision results in the following process:<u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:.75in"><u></u><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><span>1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:14.0pt">If GAC provides advice (whether by a full GAC consensus or a lesser approval threshold), the ICANN Board must “duly take[] into account” that advice -- i.e., ICANN must not act inconsistently with that advice, unless #2 and/or #3 below apply. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:.75in"><u></u><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><span>2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:14.0pt">If GAC provides advice (whether by a full GAC consensus or a lesser approval threshold), and the ICANN Board decides to take an action inconsistent with that advice, the ICANN Board must first give GAC notice and provide a rationale. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:1.25in"><u></u><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:14.0pt">In addition, f the GAC advice was by a full GAC consensus, the ICANN Board may decide to take an action inconsistent with that advice only by a vote of 2/3 of the ICANN Board. If that 2/3 threshold is reached, GAC and ICANN must then try in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. If the 2/3 threshold is not reached, ICANN is required to act consistently with the consensus GAC advice. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0in"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt">We recommend that consideration be given to further clarifying this process, and we agree with commenters who have concluded that the proposed provision does not impose an affirmative obligation upon ICANN’s Board to vote on GAC consensus advice every time that advice is provided</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt">. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">We note that additional Bylaws language is being proposed to clarify that, in any case, the Board needs to act in compliance with the ICANN Bylaws. Thus, if the Board were to determine that following GAC advice would result in non-compliance with the Bylaws, the Board should be able to reject the advice (with a majority or two-thirds vote, depending on whether the GAC advice was consensus advice) and explain its position to GAC. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Please let us know if we can assist in any way with your further consideration of these issues.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Kind regards,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Holly and Rosemary<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">HOLLY</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">J. GREGORY</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><br>Partner and Co-Chair<br>Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice<br><br></span><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Sidley Austin LLP</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><br></span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><a href="tel:%2B1%20212%20839%205853" value="+12128395853" target="_blank">+1 212 839 5853</a><br><a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com" title="Click to send email to Gregory, Holly" target="_blank">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.sidley.com/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in;text-decoration:none"><img border="0" width="34" height="34" src="cid:image002.jpg@01D156C1.9520D9D0" alt="Image removed by sender. http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png"></span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> <b>SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP</b></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p><span class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p style="margin-left:3.0in"><u></u> <u></u></p><p> <u></u><u></u></p><p>****************************************************************************************************<br>This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.<br>If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us<br>immediately.<br><br>****************************************************************************************************<u></u><u></u></p></span></div></div><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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>