<div dir="ltr"><div>YES</div><div>I have serious concerns to refer to MoU for the reasons that I explained in my eralier mail to Lawyers and further elaborated at the call CCWG Call</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-01-26 15:42 GMT+01:00 Izumi Okutani <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp" target="_blank">izumi@nic.ad.jp</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Thank you Seun. Those are indeed the key issues the ASO intended to address, which have been raised so far in the CCWG discussions.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Izumi<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On 2016/01/26 23:24, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br>
> This is well written version, addresses all the concern of MoU, date, word<br>
> "ratifies" vs Implements.... et all. While still capturing the current role<br>
> of ICANN.<br>
><br>
> Thanks for providing this re-wording Izumi. Hopefully this can meet<br>
> everyone's/most people's requirement.<br>
><br>
> Regards<br>
><br>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Izumi Okutani <<a href="mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp">izumi@nic.ad.jp</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Dear Rosemary and all,<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Thank you for your follow up suggestion on the text of ICANN's mission<br>
>> with respect to the numbers function.<br>
>> We had further discussions within the ASO, and would like to suggest the<br>
>> text below.<br>
>><br>
>> I would be happy to explain key points at the coming call.<br>
>><br>
>> ---<br>
>> Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the top-most level of<br>
>> Internet Protocol (“IP”) and Autonomous System (“AS”) numbers. In this<br>
>> role, ICANN’s Mission is:<br>
>><br>
>> 1) to provide registration services and open access for these global<br>
>> number registries as requested by the Internet Engineering Task Force and<br>
>> the Regional Internet Registries, and<br>
>> 2) to facilitate the development of related global number registry<br>
>> policies by the affected community as agreed with the RIRs.<br>
>> ---<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Izumi<br>
>> on behalf of the ASO<br>
>><br>
>> On 2016/01/21 12:05, Rosemary E. Fei wrote:<br>
>>> Dear CCWG ACCT Co-Chairs, Members, Participants and ICANN Staff:<br>
>>><br>
>>> In response to our high-level concern presented in an email from Holly<br>
>> Gregory and me on January 19, 2016 (included below), we received an email<br>
>> from Izumi Okutani on behalf of the ASO proposing an alternative intended<br>
>> to address our concern (also included below). We thank the ASO and Izumi<br>
>> for the thoughtful response. This email responds to the ASO's proposal;<br>
>> please treat this as an addendum to our high-level concern.<br>
>>><br>
>>> The ASO has proposed the following alternative language for the<br>
>> description of ICANN's mission with respect to the numbers function:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of<br>
>> Internet Protocol ("IP") and Autonomous System ("AS") numbers. Further, it<br>
>> ratifies, at the global level, policies related to these IP and AS numbers<br>
>> and developed according to the ASO-MoU.<br>
>>><br>
>>> We think this approach is helpful, and adequately solves the problem of<br>
>> referring to the MOU to define ICANN's mission.<br>
>>><br>
>>> However, we don't understand how ICANN's mission can be to "ratify"<br>
>> something, so we would change "ratifes" to "implements". To ratify implies<br>
>> the power to NOT ratify, and we do not understand that to be what ASO has<br>
>> proposed or the CCWG has agreed to.<br>
>>><br>
>>> We are comfortable with ICANN's mission including implementation of<br>
>> policies developed under the MOU, understanding that those are narrow,<br>
>> technical policies within the ASO's expertise, which will be developed<br>
>> under a process the community has found appropriate to the need.<br>
>>><br>
>>> We think the reference to the MOU needs to be more specific.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Reflecting these comments, our high-level concern will be fully<br>
>> addressed if the ASO proposal is modified as follows and adopted by the<br>
>> CCWG:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of<br>
>> Internet Protocol ("IP") and Autonomous System ("AS") numbers. Further, it<br>
>> implements, at the global level, policies related to these IP and AS<br>
>> numbers and developed pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding between<br>
>> ICANN and the ASO dated [most recent version date], as it may be amended<br>
>> from time to time in accordance with its terms.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Rosemary and Holly<br>
>>><br>
>>> Rosemary E. Fei<br>
>>> Adler & Colvin<br>
>>> 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220<br>
>>> San Francisco, CA 94104<br>
>>> <a href="tel:415%2F421-7555" value="+14154217555">415/421-7555</a> (phone)<br>
>>> <a href="tel:415%2F421-0712" value="+14154210712">415/421-0712</a> (fax)<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com">rfei@adlercolvin.com</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://www.adlercolvin.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">www.adlercolvin.com</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> _____________________________<br>
>>> Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City<br>
>> and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you<br>
>> print this email.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> ________________________________<br>
>>> From: Izumi Okutani<br>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 12:59:10 AM<br>
>>> To: Gregory, Holly; 'Mathieu Weill'; <a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a><mailto:<br>
>> <a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía;<br>
>> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><mailto:<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><mailto:<br>
>> <a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a>><br>
>>> Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG; Greeley, Amy E.; Grapsas, Rebecca;<br>
>> <a href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a>><br>
>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyer's High Level Review re Proposal to Refer<br>
>> to 2004 ASO MOU in Mission Statement (Annex 5, Third Proposal)<br>
>>> Dear Holly and all,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Thank you for this analysis.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I note the strong concern here is that with reference to the ASO about<br>
>> the Mission, the ICANN Mission on the number resources can be changed, with<br>
>> agreement between ICANN and RIRs, without going through the standard<br>
>> process of changes in the Bylaws.<br>
>>><br>
>>> We had further discussions in the ASO and to address this concern, we<br>
>> would like to suggest the alternative text below:<br>
>>><br>
>>> "Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of<br>
>> Internet Protocol ("IP") and Autonomous System ("AS") numbers. Further, it<br>
>> ratifies, at the global level, policies related to these IP and AS numbers<br>
>> and developed according to the ASO-MoU."<br>
>>><br>
>>> - While it still appears to reference the ASO MoU, the important<br>
>> difference from the previous text is that it is *not referenced to describe<br>
>> ICANN's Mission*.<br>
>>><br>
>>> - What it basically says is that ICANN's Mission on the number<br>
>> resources is to ratify global policies according to the ASO MoU.<br>
>>> i.e., If there are changes ICANN's Mission in its relation to<br>
>> ratification of global policies, expansion of its Mission, or deleting this<br>
>> part of the Mission, it will need to go through the standard process of the<br>
>> changes in the Bylaws. It will not change, expand or remove ICANN's Mission<br>
>> without the agreed process proposed in the CCWG, just like any other parts<br>
>> of the Mission Statement.<br>
>>><br>
>>> - Given the reference to the ASO MoU on the alternative text is limited<br>
>> to the ratification of global policies, even if the MoU can be changed<br>
>> based on agreement between ICANN and RIRs (as it is today), the scope of<br>
>> change is limited to how ICANN ratifies the global policies on the number<br>
>> resources.<br>
>>><br>
>>> - Until today, the ratification of global number resources policies has<br>
>> been based on agreement between ICANN and RIRs per what is described in the<br>
>> ASO MoU, which does not affect the wider ICANN communities outside the ASO.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Izumi<br>
>>><br>
>>> On 2016/01/19 5:27, Gregory, Holly wrote:<br>
>>>> Dear CCWG ACCT Co-Chairs, Members, Participants and ICANN Staff,<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 (the<br>
>> "MOU") in ICANN's Mission Statement (Bylaws Article I, Section 1), which<br>
>> 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 Proposal<br>
>> provided as follows: "ICANN's Mission is described in the ASO MoU between<br>
>> ICANN and RIRs."<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> We recommend against trying to further define ICANN's Mission through<br>
>> cross-reference to the MOU in the Bylaws and suggest that any specific<br>
>> language that you deem of critical import to defining ICANN's Mission be<br>
>> actually incorporated. (We could not find a clear statement of the ICANN<br>
>> Mission in the MOU.)<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>
>>>> · The bylaws may require a different process, parties, and<br>
>> threshold for amendment than the referenced agreement, and it is unclear<br>
>> legally which rules apply. This problem is certainly present here.<br>
>> Although the Mission will be a fundamental bylaw, the parties to the MOU<br>
>> could amend it on their own, circumventing the fundamental bylaw amendment<br>
>> process entirely. Alternatively, perhaps the MOU's amendment provisions<br>
>> would be superceded by the fundamental bylaw amendment process. At a<br>
>> minimum, if the reference remains despite our advice, this issue should be<br>
>> addressed explicitly.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> · Referencing an outside agreement in bylaws may have the legal<br>
>> effect of incorporating it into the bylaws, putting all its terms on an<br>
>> equal footing with the bylaws, which can create problems if its provisions<br>
>> conflict with the bylaws in any way. This issue has a greater chance of<br>
>> arising where an entire agreement is incorporated by reference, and is<br>
>> clearly a problem here. For example, ICANN's Bylaws are ultimately<br>
>> governed by California law, but the MOU provides that it will be governed<br>
>> by International Chamber of Commerce rules in Bermuda. Again, if the<br>
>> reference remains despite our advice, the CCWG should decide which document<br>
>> governs in case of conflict (either 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 governing<br>
>> documents, essentially freezing the agreement as incorporated. It was<br>
>> suggested on the CCWG call that the Bylaws could reference the version of<br>
>> the MOU as of a specific date, excluding from the Bylaws future amendments<br>
>> to the MOU unless the community amended the Bylaws to update the reference<br>
>> in the Mission. While this strategy partially solves one problem, it leads<br>
>> to others. Assuming that the MOU incorporated in the Bylaws continues to<br>
>> evolve over time outside of the Bylaws, there will be two versions of the<br>
>> MOU -- the 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 enforceability<br>
>> of the post-reference MOU.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> · Any outside agreement to be referenced in bylaws must be<br>
>> carefully reviewed to assess and address the sorts of consequences noted<br>
>> above. We have briefly reviewed a version of the MOU, and note that the<br>
>> MOU itself incorporates other documents by reference, including the earlier<br>
>> 2003 version of the ICANN Bylaws, creating a circularity in terms of<br>
>> providing legal advice on this provision in the future.<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 this<br>
>> aspect of ICANN's Mission, after our brief review of the MOU, it is not<br>
>> clear to us where or how it describes ICANN's mission in any narrative<br>
>> text. As we read it the MOU sets out processes and mechanisms for<br>
>> developing policies but does not itself describe substantive limits on<br>
>> ICANN or purport to define ICANN's Mission.<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 mission<br>
>> can be updated as appropriate to reflect developments that come out of this<br>
>> process, but the process itself cannot logically become part of the mission.<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 MOU<br>
>> itself in the Bylaws.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Holly and Rosemary<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> HOLLY J. GREGORY<br>
>>>> Partner and Co-Chair<br>
>>>> Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Sidley Austin LLP<br>
>>>> +1 212 839 5853<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><mailto:<br>
>> <a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a>%<a href="mailto:3cmailto%3Aholly.gregory@sidley.com">3cmailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com</a>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><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 any<br>
>> attachments and notify us<br>
>>>> immediately.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>> ****************************************************************************************************<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><mailto:<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>
>> <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMF-g&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=RcW2WW451KvYcfQSGbTo6wYQRYuCQCv0VXmu9pGdB_s&s=0trXgoSadK4OFsq8HqvzuBwnlWSyi7XQTBmByOIUJrM&e=" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMF-g&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=RcW2WW451KvYcfQSGbTo6wYQRYuCQCv0VXmu9pGdB_s&s=0trXgoSadK4OFsq8HqvzuBwnlWSyi7XQTBmByOIUJrM&e=</a><br>
>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><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>
>>><br>
>><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>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
<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>