<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:"Segoe UI";
panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Webdings;
panose-1:5 3 1 2 1 5 9 6 7 3;}
/* 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.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;}
span.markeringsbobleteksttegn
{mso-style-name:"markeringsbobletekst tegn";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:markeringsbobletekst;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:DA;}
p.markeringsbobletekst, li.markeringsbobletekst, div.markeringsbobletekst
{mso-style-name:markeringsbobletekst;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"markeringsbobletekst tegn";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.Textodeglobo, li.Textodeglobo, div.Textodeglobo
{mso-style-name:"Texto de globo";
mso-style-link:"Texto de globo Car";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.TextodegloboCar
{mso-style-name:"Texto de globo Car";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Texto de globo";
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle27
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle28
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
span.EmailStyle29
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:85.05pt 56.7pt 85.05pt 56.7pt;}
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-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I agree, the carve out is complicated. To me that means we should remove the GAC as a voting member in the EC.<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'>Seriously, Rafael – it is most unseemly to try and change the CCWG agreement through back door machinations. We all were aware of the frequency of GAC advice – that is precisely why some of us didn’t want the GAC to vote at all. But if we have agreed to that, then we should stand on the principle articulated – that any consensus advice from the GAC is subject to the carve out. Period. Full stop. End of story. Here is the text of the CCWG agreement: “If the GAC chooses to participate as a Decisional Participant in the Empowered Community, it may not participate as a decision-maker in the Empowered Community’s exercise of a Community Power to challenge the ICANN Board’s implementation of GAC consensus advice (referred to as the “GAC carve-out”).”<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><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'> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Perez Galindo, Rafael<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 11, 2016 5:23 AM<br><b>To:</b> Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk>; 'Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch' <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; 'mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk' <mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk><br><b>Cc:</b> 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Proposed Responses to questions onDraft Bylaws<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Dear all<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Actually, the proposed development of the carve-out in the draft Bylaws is so over-complicated that it may yield errors in the text. I stand to be corrected, but there seems to be a missing part in Annex D, section 2.4 (b) (ii) (A), namely “Rejection Action” should be added before “GAC Consensus Statement”. Please penholders can you kindly check this?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>We would need to strive to get a simpler text that reflects the final agreement in the CCWG, taking into account the premises outlined in the emails below, i.e., GAC advice is almost never a standalone seldom happening, but on the contrary is a frequent event, more and more rooted in community processes.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Best<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Rafael<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:gray'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=ES style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>De:</span></b><span lang=ES style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",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>En nombre de </b>Julia Katja Wolman<br><b>Enviado el:</b> viernes, 08 de abril de 2016 14:54<br><b>Para:</b> 'Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch'; 'mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk'<br><b>CC:</b> 'CCWG Accountability'<br><b>Asunto:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Proposed Responses to questions onDraft Bylaws<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Dear Jorge, </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>In line with your comments, we believe it is important that we have clarity on the issues related to the GAC “carve-out”. The Bylaws text as a whole should reflect the CCWG Proposal and it is important to ensure that there is no direct/indirect extension of the “carve-out” provision in the relevant section of the CCWG Supplemental Report. </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>A simple and clean Bylaws text as possible is important from our point of view and referring to the carve-out in different sections of the Bylaw text has certainly not made it less complicated. </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Best regards, </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Julia </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><br></span><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Julia Katja Wolman</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><br><br></span><b><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:maroon'>DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY</span></b><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:maroon'><br></span><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'><br>Dahlerups Pakhus<br>Langelinie Allé 17<br>DK-2100 København Ø<br>Telephone: +45 3529 1000<br>Direct: +45 35291308<br>E-mail: </span><span lang=ES style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'><a href="mailto:jukacz@erst.dk"><span lang=EN-US>jukacz@erst.dk</span></a></span><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'><br></span><span lang=ES style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'><a href="http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk"><span lang=EN-US>www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk</span></a></span><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'><br><br>MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH<br><br></span><span lang=ES style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:Webdings;color:green'>P</span><span lang=ES style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:green'>Please consider the environment before printing this email.</span><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=ES style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>Fra:</span></b><span lang=ES style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",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>På vegne af </b>Mark Carvell<br><b>Sendt:</b> 8. april 2016 13:04<br><b>Til:</b> Kavouss Arasteh<br><b>Cc:</b> <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br><b>Emne:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Proposed Responses to questions on Draft Bylaws </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Dear Jorge </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>I think this serves to underline that in the new era of transversal working with the GNSO in particular, the so-called "carve-out" from a community escalation decision in instances where the Board decision would be based solely on GAC advice, would be an extremely rare occurrence. Plus of course the GAC would be advising the community throughout such a decision stage: as has been made clear in the CCWG discussions several times, while not being able to exercise a vote due to the carve-out, governments would not be excluded from this process. </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Kind regards </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Mark </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES>Mark Carvell <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES>Global Internet Governance Policy <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES>Department for Culture, Media and Sport <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES><a href="mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk">mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES>tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES>On 8 April 2016 at 08:54, Kavouss Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES>Jorge+1 <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES>Kavousd<br><br>Sent from my iPhone <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=ES><br>On 8 Apr 2016, at 08:52, <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>> <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>> wrote: <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Dear all</span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Just to reiterate what some of us said in the chat yesterday:</span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>-</span><span lang=ES style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>GAC Advice is almost always linked to a community process, and the tendency (and wish) is to increase this</span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>-</span><span lang=ES style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>GAC Advice is actually quite frequent (at least three times a year)</span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>-</span><span lang=ES style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>There is no basis in the CCWG report for isolating GAC Advice from other inputs from the community, and it would be counter to the multistakeholder fashion we work and/or we are trying to work within ICANN</span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Hope this helps</span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Regards</span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Jorge </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES> <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 style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Von:</span></b><span lang=ES 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>Schaefer, Brett<br><b>Gesendet:</b> Donnerstag, 7. April 2016 16:31<br><b>An:</b> Andrew Sullivan <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>>; <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br><b>Betreff:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Proposed Responses to questions on Draft Bylaws</span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Thanks Andrew, these are interesting comments. </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I agree on 6 and raised similar concerns in the chat Tuesday. </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>On 25, I agree that the problem is lack of clarity. It needs to be clear when a decision is based on GAC consensus or not. </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Also, there is the danger of wrapping a decision based GAC consensus advice into a larger group of unrelated matters. Intentionally or not, it could force the EC into the undesirable position of (1) not opposing a decision based on GAC consensus advice it does not like or (2) opposing it knowing that the unrelated matters that have broad support will also be blocked with it. </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>This is why I suggested echoing Article 25.3 to avoid this dilemma. Article 25.3 states:</span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D'>·</span><span lang=ES style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>The Board shall not combine an amendment of these Bylaws that was the result of a policy development process of a Supporting Organization (a “PDP Amendment”) with any other amendment. The Board shall indicate in the applicable Board Notice whether such amendment is a PDP Amendment. </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Here is the text that I suggested:</span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D'>·</span><span lang=ES style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>The Board shall not combine a decision based on or consistent with consensus GAC advice with any other decision. The Board shall indicate in the applicable Board Notice whether such a decision is based on or is consistent with consensus GAC advice. </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>If people have helpful edits, go at it. But I think this would separate – in a helpful way – Board decisions based on GAC consensus advice. I don’t think it would be onerous. Consensus GAC decisions are not all that frequent and, under the amended bylaws, must be indicated as such when sent to the Board.</span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>If the GAC advice is supported elsewhere in the community this requirement should not be problematic because broadly supported advice would not pass thresholds for EC escalation. But it would allow the EC to consider and, if desired, address decisions based on GAC consensus advice in a targeted manner. </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>As mentioned in the chat, this in no way is an extension of the GAC carve-out. It would just help clarify when it might apply. </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Best,</span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Brett </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><div><div><div><div class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES><hr size=2 width="100%" noshade style='color:#A0A0A0' align=left></span></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span lang=ES style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#004B8D'>Brett</span></b><span lang=ES> </span><b><span lang=ES style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#004B8D'>Schaefer</span></b><i><span lang=ES style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#58595B'><br>Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs<br>Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy</span></i><span lang=ES><br></span><span lang=ES style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#58595B'>The Heritage Foundation<br>214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br>Washington, DC 20002<br>202-608-6097</span><span lang=ES><br></span><span lang=ES style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#004B8D'><a href="http://heritage.org/"><span style='color:#004B8D;text-decoration:none'>heritage.org</span></a></span><span lang=ES> <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 style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span lang=ES style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span lang=ES style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",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>On Behalf Of </b>Andrew Sullivan<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 07, 2016 9:48 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Proposed Responses to questions on Draft Bylaws</span><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=ES>Dear colleagues,<br><br>Many apologies for missing calls this week, but as I noted in<br>Marrakesh this week is the IETF meeting and I have approximately no<br>time.<br><br>Anyway, I have some remarks. I'm sorry these are lengthy.<br><br>Q1<br><br>On the Mission, q1, I think it is extremely unfortunate to agree to<br>remove the restriction of "in the root zone".<br><br>I reject unequivocally the argument, "It is not true that ICANN<br>coordinates assignment ONLY in the root zone, as such term is<br>currently understood. ICANN’s gTLD registry and registrar agreements<br>and policies deal substantially and primarily with issues relating to<br>assignment of names at the second (and in some cases lower) levels of<br>the DNS." ICANN's gTLD registry and registrar agreements an policies<br>deal susbtantially and primarily with how _those registries and<br>registrars_ coordinate assignment in zones outside the root zone.<br>That is, ICANN's agreements are a meta-requirement on how other people<br>do co-ordination in the DNS, and do not actualy perform the<br>co-ordination<br><br>I know that this seems like a fine distinction. But it's important to<br>keep it in mind because the language that have been in the bylaws<br>historically, and that the CCWG has agreed to restore, is the very<br>basis on which various people around the Internet mistake ICANN for<br>the Internet Police. By removing the restriction to the root zone, we<br>are once again freeing ICANN to assert control down the DNS -- a<br>control that is very much inconsistent with the distributed authority<br>design of the DNS. <br><br>Q3<br><br>It might be worth observing also that, since the requester is the<br>person who asked for the transcripts and recordings, presumably the<br>requester could be asked about certain redactions due to the issues<br>outlined.<br><br>Q6<br><br>The proposal for the community just to endorse whatever the board<br>decides here strikes me as potentially risky. Supposed the community<br>replaces a recalled board member with a new one that is less<br>accommodating of a prevailing majority of the Board. The Board would<br>be able to remove that new director with a 75% majority. If the EC<br>does not have the ability to reject the Board's decision to remove,<br>then there could be a procedural deadlock that could only be<br>ameliorated by a complete replacement of the Board. That seems<br>undesirable.<br><br>Q17<br><br>I believe the requested addition is overspecification. It will simply<br>yield disputes about whether a given recommendation is limited in the<br>relevant way.<br><br>Q25<br><br>The document says<br><br>Initially, “solely” was added to tie the Petition Notice to the<br>GAC Consensus Board Resolution. For example, the ICANN Budget is<br>an amalgamation of many different inputs. If a particular<br>expenditure is tangentially related to GAC advice, then the GAC<br>should not be removed from voting on that petition.<br><br>I don't understand this argument. There are two possibilities: either<br>the expenditure is solely related to GAC advice (in which case,<br>whether it's "tangential" is irrelevant) or it is not. If it is not,<br>then the GAC exclusion is not entailed. If it is solely related to<br>GAC advice, then I don't get the claim above that the GAC should not<br>be excluded -- that's the whole point of the "carve out".<br><br>I hope these remarks are useful. Please see also the remarks that I sent in collaboration with my colleagues on the IAB.<br><br>Best regards,<br><br>A<br><br><br><br>On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 06:30:14PM -0400, Bernard Turcotte wrote:<br>> All,<br>> <br>> Co-chairs and rapporteurs have reviewed and proposed answers to all<br>> questions some based on the results of the Tuesday April 5th meeting of the<br>> CCWG-Accountability.<br>> <br>> These are attached in preparation for the Thursday April 7th meeting of the<br>> CCWG-Accountability on this topic.<br>> <br>> The CCWG-Accountability Co-chairs Mathieu, Thomas and Leon<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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br><br><span style='color:#888888'><br><span class=hoenzb>-- </span><br><span class=hoenzb>Andrew Sullivan</span><br><span class=hoenzb><a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a></span><br><span class=hoenzb>_______________________________________________</span><br><span class=hoenzb>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br><span class=hoenzb><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br><span class=hoenzb><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span></span> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES style='color:#888888'>_______________________________________________<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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a> </span><span lang=ES><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=ES><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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></body></html>