<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">As Paul noted, the phrase “duly taken in to account” has been in the bylaws for over a decade. It is not part of our Recommendation 11 changes, which are designed to reserve the board’s obligation to “try to find a mutually acceptable
solution” ONLY for GAC advice that is approved without a formal objection from any country. </div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">I don’t think our lawyers have made a strong case that we must change our Rec 11 to modify exiting bylaws to resolve any pre-existing ambiguity. </div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">The rest of the lawyers advice is helpful in confirming our understanding that there is no meaningful distinction between' voting’ and ‘determining to take an action’. And our lawyers have confirmed what I understood to be the
process that would result from our Rec 11 text. Highlighted below )</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">Below I have pasted the lawyer’s memo so it again part of this thread.</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">From Holly and Rosemary:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">
<b><u><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Annex 11 (GAC Advice)</span></u></b><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">
<span style="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:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">
<b><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">ICANN Bylaws Article XI, Section 2.1.j.</span></b><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">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-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">do not act inconsistently 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><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>.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">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-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">The proposed addition to the current Bylaws text is underlined below:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; page-break-after: avoid;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; page-break-after: avoid;">
<b><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">ICANN Bylaws Article XI, Section 2.1.j.</span></b><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">Based on our interpretation of the current Bylaws text, described above, we believe this proposed provision results in the following process:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt 0.75in; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">1.<span style="line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt 0.75in; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">2.<span style="line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt 1.25in; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">·<span style="line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span>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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;"><i>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</i>. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Please let us know if we can assist in any way with your further consideration of these issues.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
<div id="MAC_OUTLOOK_SIGNATURE"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;"><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION" style="font-size: 16px;">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:12pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span><<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of "Gregory, Holly" <<a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Monday, January 25, 2016 at 9:46 AM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>, 'Malcolm Hutty' <<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net">malcolm@linx.net</a>>, 'Greg Shatan' <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>'ICANN' <<a href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a>>, "<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>, ACCT-Staff <<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a>>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <<a href="mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com">sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com</a>>,
"Greeley, Amy E." <<a href="mailto:AGreeley@sidley.com">AGreeley@sidley.com</a>>, "Grapsas, Rebecca" <<a href="mailto:rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com">rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9, 10, 11<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><!-- Template generated by Exclaimer Mail Disclaimers on 08:46:56 Monday, 25 January 2016 --><style type="text/css">P.12f8c011-ea17-4b13-91eb-a69af88e2d55 {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
LI.12f8c011-ea17-4b13-91eb-a69af88e2d55 {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
DIV.12f8c011-ea17-4b13-91eb-a69af88e2d55 {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
TABLE.12f8c011-ea17-4b13-91eb-a69af88e2d55Table {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
</style>
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
<div>
<p class="12f8c011-ea17-4b13-91eb-a69af88e2d55"></p>
<div>Dear All, <br>
<br>
We were asked whether the current bylaw language "duly taken into account" is ambiguous. We concluded that it is ambiguous and that, especially when read in the context of the remaining language of the bylaw provision requiring a specific process should the
Board not follow GAC advice, the language is susceptible to an interpretation that many of you do not support (as apparent in the many emails our comment generated). Since it is ambiguous, it is also subject to other interpretations. We have no position on
the substantive issue of what impact GAC advice should have. We recommend that work be undertaken to remove the ambiguity. <br>
<br>
Kind regards, Holly<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Sent with Good (www.good.com)<br>
<strong>
<div><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"> </font></div>
</strong>
<hr tabindex="-1">
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> Paul Rosenzweig<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, January 25, 2016 08:09:13 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Malcolm Hutty'; 'Greg Shatan'<br>
<b>Cc:</b> 'ICANN'; 'Thomas Rickert'; <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>; <a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">
acct-staff@icann.org</a>; Sidley ICANN CCWG; Greeley, Amy E.; Grapsas, Rebecca<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9, 10, 11<br>
</font><br>
<div></div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Weighing back in, a few more thoughts: First, the "duly taken into account"<br>
language has been in the bylaws for quite some time -- and it has been<br>
implemented in taking GAC advice into account (or not) over that time<br>
without causing any appreciable problem. Second, changing, "taken into<br>
account" to interpret it as "not act inconsistently" is a substantive change<br>
in the standard to be applied by the Board in considering the GAC advice<br>
and, as Malcolm points out, would have second order effects on an IRP review<br>
of the Board's actions in ways that are likely to be confusing. Third,<br>
without doubt, the idea of "not act inconsistently" gives greater privilege<br>
to GAC advice than it currently has. <br>
<br>
For these reasons, I believe that, notwithstanding my great respect for the<br>
Sidley -Adler team, we should reject this reinterpretation. If they remain<br>
convinced that "duly taken into account" is too ambiguous for a bylaw<br>
(notwithstanding its provenance over the years) and that the phrase must be<br>
changed then the reasonable options are words like "considered" or<br>
"reviewed" or such ...<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
Paul Rosenzweig<br>
<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>
<br>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660<br>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650<br>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<br>
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
Link to my PGP Key<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Malcolm Hutty [<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net">mailto:malcolm@linx.net</a>]
<br>
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 4:57 AM<br>
To: Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>; Paul Rosenzweig<br>
<<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>><br>
Cc: ICANN <<a href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a>>; Thomas Rickert <<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a>>;<br>
<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>;
<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a>; Sidley ICANN<br>
CCWG <<a href="mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com">sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com</a>>; Greeley, Amy E. <<a href="mailto:AGreeley@sidley.com">AGreeley@sidley.com</a>>;<br>
Grapsas, Rebecca <<a href="mailto:rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com">rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9, 10, 11<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 24/01/2016 21:32, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
> 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.<br>
<br>
I also agree that this would be a substantial change.<br>
<br>
To support that, I would ask you to consider the follow, not unlikely,<br>
scenario.<br>
<br>
The GAC has advised the Board to do something, but what it has advised is<br>
not entirely clearly, and there is certainly ambiguity as to how it might be<br>
implemented. The Board has then done something. A materially affected party,<br>
unhappy with the Board's action and preferring an alternative that would<br>
take a more extreme view of the GAC advice, challenges the action in the<br>
IRP. The Board takes the view that it has taken the GAC's advice into<br>
account and that what it has done is reasonably consistent with the GAC<br>
advice; the complainant argues that the action was not consistent with it.<br>
<br>
If the IRP finds that factually the complainant is correct to allege that<br>
the Board's action was not consisistent with the GAC advice, what is the<br>
consequence of that? It seems to vary according to which standard we choose:<br>
<br>
- If the current standard applies, that the Board "duly take into account"<br>
GAC advice, the IRP may still find that the Board did do that:<br>
since they noted the GAC's advice, considered it, and believed (albeit<br>
incorrectly) that what they were doing constituted a reasonably<br>
implementation of it, it is hard to say they did not meet this standard.<br>
The IRP will however order the Board that to bring itself back into<br>
compliance with the bylaws it must notify the GAC that it has acted<br>
inconsistently, and try to find a mutually acceptable solution. The action,<br>
however, may stand: a solution need not necessarily involve cancelling the<br>
action, but might be found through supplementing the action with another.<br>
<br>
- If Holly's standard applies, that the Board "must not act inconsistently"<br>
with GAC advice, then the mere finding that the Board has acted<br>
inconsistently invalidates that decision. The action must be quashed, if it<br>
is possible to do so; failure to do so would consistute perpetuating the<br>
bylaws breach.<br>
<br>
This is a material change, that may significantly affect the outcome.<br>
<br>
Personally, I do not believe this change is needed or desirable. For that<br>
reason, I respectfully disagree with accepting Holly's advice on this<br>
particular case.<br>
<br>
Kind Regards,<br>
<br>
Malcolm.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523<br>
Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London<br>
Internet Exchange | <a href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/">http://publicaffairs.linx.net/</a><br>
<br>
London Internet Exchange Ltd<br>
Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ<br>
<br>
Company Registered in England No. 3137929<br>
Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</span></font>
<p></p>
<p class="12f8c011-ea17-4b13-91eb-a69af88e2d55"> </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>
****************************************************************************************************</p>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</body>
</html>