<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.12f8c011-ea17-4b13-91eb-a69af88e2d55, li.12f8c011-ea17-4b13-91eb-a69af88e2d55, div.12f8c011-ea17-4b13-91eb-a69af88e2d55
{mso-style-name:12f8c011-ea17-4b13-91eb-a69af88e2d55;
mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.emailquote, li.emailquote, div.emailquote
{mso-style-name:emailquote;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:1.0pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Finally dug out of the blizzard of snow and now wading through the blizzard of email. Sounds like the “duly taken into account” thread has run its course, but “duly considered”
is what we mean so why not just say it? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Cheers,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Ken<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></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"> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, January 26, 2016 3:07 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; sdelbianco@netchoice.org; holly.gregory@sidley.com; malcolm@linx.net; gregshatanipc@gmail.com<br>
<b>Cc:</b> ICANN@adlercolvin.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; acct-staff@icann.org; sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com; AGreeley@sidley.com; rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9, 10, 11<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">That seems sensible – don’t fix it if it ain’t broken, right?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Jorge
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="DE" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Von:</span></b><span lang="DE" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>Im Auftrag von </b>Paul Rosenzweig<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Montag, 25. Januar 2016 17:07<br>
<b>An:</b> 'Steve DelBianco' <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>>; 'Gregory, Holly' <<a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.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>
<b>Cc:</b> '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: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>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9, 10, 11<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE-CH"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">+1 with Steve. Still not sure I like Annex 11 as written even, but very much sure that the pre-existing ambiguity can be tolerated, I think ..<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Paul Rosenzweig<o:p></o:p></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"><span style="color:#0563C1">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">O: +1 (202) 547-0660<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">M: +1 (202) 329-9650<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<o:p></o:p></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"><span style="color:#0563C1">Link
to my PGP Key</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;text-decoration:none"><img border="0" width="578" height="87" id="Picture_x0020_7" src="cid:image001.png@01D158EF.02940C60"></span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></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"> Steve DelBianco [<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, January 25, 2016 10:08 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gregory, Holly <<a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a>>; 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>
<b>Cc:</b> '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: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>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9, 10, 11<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">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 )<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Below I have pasted the lawyer’s memo so it again part of this thread.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From Holly and Rosemary:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Annex 11 (GAC Advice)</span></u></b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">: </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">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:</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">ICANN Bylaws Article XI, Section 2.1.j.</span></b><span style="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.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="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 “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 Governmental 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>.” </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="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="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">The proposed addition to the current Bylaws text is underlined below:</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="page-break-after:avoid"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;page-break-after:avoid"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">ICANN Bylaws Article XI, Section 2.1.j.</span></b><span style="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.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;background:yellow">Based on our interpretation of the current Bylaws text, described above, we believe this proposed provision results in the following
process:</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;background:yellow">1.</span><span style="color:black;background:yellow"> </span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;background:yellow">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. </span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;background:yellow">2.</span><span style="color:black;background:yellow"> </span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;background:yellow">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. </span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:1.25in;text-indent:-.25in">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;background:yellow">·</span><span style="color:black;background:yellow"> </span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;background:yellow">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><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0in">
<i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">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-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0in">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">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></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Please let us know if we can assist in any way with your further consideration of these issues.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><<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>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, January 25, 2016 at 9:46 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>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>
<b>Cc: </b>'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>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9, 10, 11<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">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 (<a href="http://www.good.com">www.good.com</a>)</span><strong><span lang="DE-CH"><o:p></o:p></span></strong></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">
<hr size="3" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> 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</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">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<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="12f8c011-ea17-4b13-91eb-a69af88e2d55"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">****************************************************************************************************<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>
****************************************************************************************************<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>