<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I agree with the concerns raised here regarding the use of a majority level of decision-making in the SCWG. The registries (with 6 seats) nearly hold a majority, and as Seun notes, the registries/registrars do hold a majority. This by itself is probably enough to disqualify a majority as an appropriate measure. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Consensus would be far more appropriate (I don't think this needs to be "full consensus," however). After all, nearly every decision-making process in ICANN-land is some form of consensus. (While the GNSO Council is an exception, many Council decisions involve things such as PDP reports that are themselves the product of consensus. The Board is another significant exception, but the Board often operates by de facto consensus.)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Colleagues</div><div>We all were very busy and a small number of very specifically oriented influence the entire procedure by putting a sentence or phrase that, in the absent of </div><div>consensus, the majority is prevails.</div><div>THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.</div><div>By so doing the rest of the community would be captured by few influençai constituency.</div><div>We MUST stick to the consensus and it is up to the chair or convener of the group to seek that consensus.</div><div>We have discussed this issue at ICG in fall 2014 and produced a document under " Consensus Building Process2</div><div>That served as a guide line during the ICG debate</div><div>Those proposed MAJORITY here proposed Full consensus ELSEWHERE</div><div>DOUBLE STANDARD depending ON WHICH DIRECTION THEY WISH THAT THE WIND BLOWS.</div><div>NO AND NO</div><div>This is unacceptable</div><div>Regards</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div>Kavouss </div><div><br></div></font></span></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-04-09 17:54 GMT+02:00 Christopher Wilkinson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu" target="_blank">lists@christopherwilkinson.eu</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Well, Chuck, where I come out on this:<div><br></div><div>1.<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I agree that it should be harder.</div><div><br></div><div>2.<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>The proposed voting structure of SCWG is so far biassed towards GNSO and the Registries, that the 'small group' could actually represent all the governments (one vote) and all the users (one vote). If the composition of the SCWG was balanced 50:50 then one might consider a simple majority of all the members, 50%+1. But as it stands in the proposal, well, NO.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards</div><span><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>CW</div></font></span><div><div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div><div>On 05 Apr 2016, at 21:32, "Gomes, Chuck" <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com" target="_blank">cgomes@verisign.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-US" vlink="purple" link="blue"><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">I think there are two ways of looking at this:<u></u><u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span>1.<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman""> <span> </span></span></span></span><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Requiring consensus makes it harder to do separation. As Christopher says, that is a big step so maybe it should be harder. That is in essence why I opposed only requiring a simple majority of those present in a meeting instead of a simple majority of all members whether they are in attendance or not.<u></u><u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span>2.<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman""> <span> </span></span></span></span><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Requiring consensus also makes it easier for a small group to essentially veto a separation recommendation. If a small group of the members oppose a separation while a strong majority favor it, simply by preventing consensus, separation could be stopped.<u></u><u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">I don’t know where I come out on this but I definitely we should weigh both points before deciding.<u></u><u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Chuck<u></u><u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span></div><div><div style="border-style:solid none none;padding:3pt 0in 0in;border-top-color:rgb(181,196,223);border-top-width:1pt"><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><b><span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><span> </span><a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><span> </span>[mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-" target="_blank">cwg-</a><a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]<span> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span> </span></b>Christopher Wilkinson<br><b>Sent:</b><span> </span>Tuesday, April 05, 2016 2:41 PM<br><b>To:</b><span> </span><a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a> Accountability<br><b>Cc:</b><span> </span><a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><span> </span>IANA<br><b>Subject:</b><span> </span>[CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version - SCWG<br><b>Importance:</b><span> </span>High<u></u><u></u></span></div></div></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></div><div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="font-size:13pt">Good evening:<u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"> </span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="font-size:13pt">With reference to the Sidley draft of April 2, 2016 ("Questions and Clarifications for Bylaws Coordination Group"), I wish to make a specific comment relating to Question 22 referring to Section 19 of the draft Bylaws concerning the SCWG ("Separation Cross Community Working Group".)<u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"> </span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="font-size:13pt">Section 19.5 addresses the Composition of the SCWG and the voting rights of its members and liaisons.<u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"> </span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="font-size:13pt">Section 19.7 (a) addresses the SCWG decision-making procedure.<u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"> </span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="font-size:13pt">During the CWG conference call on April 4, Sidley raised the issue of how to define the majority of the SCWG (Section 19.7(a)) in the absence of a consensus. <u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="font-size:13pt">The bar of 50+1% was proposed. (Question 22.)<u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"> </span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><b><span style="font-size:13pt">I submit that this bar is far too low, and that the general principle of consensus must be maintained.</span></b><span style="font-size:13pt"><u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"> </span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="font-size:13pt">Section 19.5 of the draft Bylaws provides for SCWG to be composed of 13 voting members, 5 non voting liaisons and unlimited other participants. Among the voting members, GNSO and the ccTLDs would hold 9 votes; more than a majority of 7.<u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"> </span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="font-size:13pt">However, eventual separation of the IANA/PTI function from ICANN would have far reaching implications for many stakeholders which go well beyond the specific interests of DNS Registries and Registrars.<u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"> </span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="font-size:13pt">It would not be appropriate for the representatives of the Registries and Registrars to be able to determine a separation decision, acting alone, absent consensus in the SCWG. If the proposed composition and voting rights in an SCWG are maintained, it is absolutely essential that the SCWG act by consensus and not by a majority vote.<u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"> </span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="font-size:13pt">Regards<u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"> </span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><span style="font-size:13pt">Christopher Wilkinson<u></u><u></u></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">Begin forwarded message:<u></u><u></u></div></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><br><br><u></u><u></u></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><b><span style="font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13.5pt">From:<span> </span></span></b><span style="font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13.5pt">Mathieu Weill <<a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>></span><u></u><u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><b><span style="font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13.5pt">Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version</span></b><u></u><u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><b><span style="font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13.5pt">Date:<span> </span></span></b><span style="font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13.5pt">3 Apr 2016 14:16:21 GMT+02:00</span><u></u><u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><b><span style="font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13.5pt">To:<span> </span></span></b><span style="font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13.5pt">CCWG Accountability <<a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>></span><u></u><u></u></div></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></div><div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">Dear colleagues, <u></u><u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">In anticipation of our calls this week, please find below a note from the lawyers group, the draft bylaws as well as an issue list. <u></u><u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">It is important to read the lawyers notes as they quite efficiently describe the context and status of the work. Please review them for any process related question. <u></u><u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">The purpose of our calls this week will be to address the issue list questions (questions 1-7 & 25-34 are for the CCWG, the others for CWG). <u></u><u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">Should any other issue be added to the list based on your respective reviews, please raise your questions on the list for transparency. <u></u><u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">Best regards,<u></u><u></u></p><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">Mathieu<u></u><u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">---------------<u></u><u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">Depuis mon mobile, d<span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span>sol<span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span><span> </span>pour le style<u></u><u></u></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><br>D<span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span>but du message transf<span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span>r<span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span> :<u></u><u></u></p></div><blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><b>Exp</b><b><span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span></b><b>diteur:</b><span> </span>John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord <<a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org" target="_blank">bylaws-coord@icann.org</a>><br><b>Date:</b><span> </span>3 avril 2016 13:16:28 UTC+2<br><b>Destinataire:</b><span> </span><a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org" target="_blank">bylaws-coord@icann.org</a><br><b>Cc:</b><span> </span>"Flanagan, Sharon" <<a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com" target="_blank">sflanagan@sidley.com</a>>, "Cc: Zagorin, Janet S." <<a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:jzagorin@sidley.com" target="_blank">jzagorin@sidley.com</a>>, "Hilton, Tyler" <<a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:thilton@sidley.com" target="_blank">thilton@sidley.com</a>>, ICANN-Adler <<a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com" target="_blank">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a>>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <<a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com" target="_blank">jhofheimer@sidley.com</a>>, "Mohan, Vivek" <<a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:vivek.mohan@sidley.com" target="_blank">vivek.mohan@sidley.com</a>>, "Clark, Michael A." <<a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:mclark@sidley.com" target="_blank">mclark@sidley.com</a>>, "Boucher, Rick" <<a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:rboucher@sidley.com" target="_blank">rboucher@sidley.com</a>>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <<a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com" target="_blank">sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com</a>>, "Kerry, Cameron" <<a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:ckerry@sidley.com" target="_blank">ckerry@sidley.com</a>>, "McNicholas, Edward R." <<a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:emcnicholas@sidley.com" target="_blank">emcnicholas@sidley.com</a>>, Daniel Halloran <<a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:daniel.halloran@icann.org" target="_blank">daniel.halloran@icann.org</a>>, Amy Stathos <<a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:amy.stathos@icann.org" target="_blank">amy.stathos@icann.org</a>>, "Boelter, Jessica C.K." <<a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:jboelter@sidley.com" target="_blank">jboelter@sidley.com</a>>, "Fuller, Miles" <<a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:wfuller@sidley.com" target="_blank">wfuller@sidley.com</a>>, "Tam, Tennie H." <<a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:tennie.tam@sidley.com" target="_blank">tennie.tam@sidley.com</a>><br><b>Objet:</b><span> </span><b>[bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version</b><br><b>R</b><b><span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span></b><b>pondre<span> </span></b><b><span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span></b><b>:</b><span> </span>John Jeffrey <<a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:john.jeffrey@icann.org" target="_blank">john.jeffrey@icann.org</a>><u></u><u></u></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt"><p style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in">Dear Bylaws Coordination Group,<u></u><u></u></p><p style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in">Please find attached a document<span> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span><span> </span>DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr) (<span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span>DRAFT BYLAWS<span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span>) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the last full draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to provide another full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2 April. The DRAFT BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the legal drafting group. There is also an Issue List attached, which are a set of additional questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws Coordination Group.<u></u><u></u></p><p style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in"> We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week<u></u><u></u></p><p style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in"><b><u>Recent Work</u></b><span> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span><span> </span>During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made up of Sidley<span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span>s team, Adler<span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span>s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and worked through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN Bylaws. Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws Coordination Group during this two-week period asking questions and incorporating that feedback into the new draft. There is likely to be the need for some additional discussions as we work toward a public comment version of the new ICANN bylaws.<u></u><u></u></p><p style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in"><b><u>More Work to Do</u></b><span> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span><span> </span>There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions, and polishing the draft before publication for public comment. The legal teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and comments during this period.<u></u><u></u></p><p style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in"><b><u>Legal Teams have not yet<span> </span></u></b><b><u><span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span>certified</u></b><b><u><span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span></u></b><span> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span><span> </span>Since a) the Bylaws Coordination Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these DRAFT BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is still review and polishing to be done by the legal teams<span> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span><span> </span>the legal teams have not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the recommendations within the Proposals.<u></u><u></u></p><p style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in">As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version for Public Comment<u></u><u></u></p><p style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in"><b><u>Next Steps</u></b><span> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span><u></u><u></u></p><p style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in">1) <i>Now until 13 April</i><span> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span><span> </span>members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide feedback to legal teams;<u></u><u></u></p><p style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in">2) <i>Now until 18 April</i>, (with particular focus during week of 13-18 April)<span> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span><span> </span>legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with the Bylaws Drafting Group;<u></u><u></u></p><p style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in">3) <i>20 April</i><span> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span><span> </span>posting date for public comment period for new proposed bylaws<span> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span><span> </span>with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets the proposal recommendations.<u></u><u></u></p><p style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">���</span><u></u><u></u></p><p style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in">As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days, to get ICANN<span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span>s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these important changes.<u></u><u></u></p><p style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in">We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them in the spirit that they are offered<span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span><span> </span>to help all of us to be able to collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way possible<span> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">�</span><span> </span>to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community empowered ICANN.<u></u><u></u></p><p style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in">John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei<u></u><u></u></p></blockquote></div></div></div><div><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt"><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt"><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">_____________________<u></u><u></u></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">____________________<u></u><u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt"><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">_______________________________________________<br>bylaws-coord mailing list<br><a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org" target="_blank">bylaws-coord@icann.org</a><br><a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord</a><u></u><u></u></div></blockquote></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br><a style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><u></u><u></u></div></blockquote></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</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>