<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Again, +1 to Greg.<br>
The text of the report doesn't state that all the Chartering
Organisations shall approve the proposal, so the bylaw draft
misinterpreted the text.<br>
Best,<br>
Tanya <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 26/04/16 19:58, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHUSwdhgbVvn2V=o2YG0w1iXnyLoXWn2CFUL_Vd5asptoUQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The stated premise of
your earlier question is incorrect. The existing text does
not state that approval of all the Chartering Organizations is
required.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The answer to the
question itself is yes, which is consistent with the Charter
of the CCWG, consistent with the Proposal and consistent with
the actions of the CCWG in forwarding the WS1 Proposal to the
Board.</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 Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 1:48 PM,
Schaefer, Brett <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org" target="_blank">Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">So
the answer to my earlier question is “yes”.
</span></p>
<span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The existing text states that
approval of all the Chartering Organizations is
required. So the purpose of this addition is to
clarify that the Chairs may forward a proposal to
the Board even if all of the Chartering
Organizations do not approve it?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
</span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>
[mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 26, 2016 1:20 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> McAuley, David<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Sidley ICANN CCWG; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a></a>; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a></a><span
class=""><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] inconsistency in
bylaws spotted</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">All:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">My
revision is NOT inconsistent with the
Supplemental Final Proposal and does NOT
"change the report."</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">The
Proposal states, no less than 3 times, that<b> "</b></span><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">acceptance
of the FOI-HR will require the same
process as for Work Stream 1
recommendations (as agreed for all Work
Stream 2 recommendations)":</span></b><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> </span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">In
Para. 168; Annex 6, Para. 5; and Annex 6,
Para. 19, the following language is
repeated verbatim<b>:</b></span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> </span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">The
proposed draft Bylaw also clarifies that
no IRP challenges can be made on the
grounds of this Bylaw until a Framework of
Interpretation on Human Rights (FOI-HR) is
developed and approved as part of Work
Stream 2 activities. It further clarifies
that acceptance of the FOI-HR will require
the same process as for Work Stream 1
recommendations (as agreed for all Work
Stream 2 recommendations).</span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">This
clearly shows the group's intent regarding
the drafting of a Bylaw, which is that
<b>NO</b> special process or heightened
level of approval was intended for the FOI.
Where we have had special processes or
heightened approvals, we have been very
explicit and gone on at considerable length
to describe them. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Taking
the parenthetical in the Proposal's "draft
bylaw" language -- "(including Chartering
Organizations’ approval)" -- and using that
to manufacture a requirement for a
heightened standard (affirmative approval
vs. non-objection, or unanimous affirmative
approval) tortures the language and is
without any basis. We have been clear
throughout that the exact language of the
"draft bylaw" texts in the Proposal is not
to be taken as is, and must be read along
with the other guidance in the Proposal to
determine what the "real" Draft Bylaw should
say. This is made clear when the "draft
bylaw" language is introduced in the
Proposal, it is prefaced with the following:
"Include a Bylaw with the following<b>
intent</b> in Work Stream 1
recommendations". Read in conjunction wtih
Para 168 and Annex 6 Paras 5 and 19, it is
clear that the
<b><i>intent</i></b> of the CCWG was that
there should be no special process for the
FOI.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Finally,
this is not a Work Stream 2 question or an
implementation question. This is a question
of what the Draft Bylaw should say
<i>now </i>and we need to resolve this now.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">The
current Draft Bylaw language does NOT
accurately reflect the intent of the CCWG.
While I'm not wedded to my exact language
suggestion, there needs to be a change made
so that the intent of the CCWG is accurately
reflected. Since Para 168 and Annex 6 Paras
5 and 19 will not be in the Bylaws,
something needs to be added to the language
now proposed so that the point they clearly
and repeatedly make is absolutely clear in
the Bylaws.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Greg</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Greg</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at
10:18 AM, McAuley, David <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com">dmcauley@verisign.com</a></a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<p>I agree with Greg’s thoughtful comments
almost all the time, but not in this case.
</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Greg’s point, as I understand it, is that
we should not perpetuate language that led
to confusion. A worthy goal – but IMO it
is better taken up in developing the FoI
in WS2. We have a proposal and it is done
and has been accepted by the COs and it
says what it says. We should not “fix” it
now – we should ask whether the draft
bylaws capture what the proposal says.
With Holly’s tweak it is basically
verbatim.
</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And I can understand the sense in Niels’s
comment that Greg’s change leaves no room
for interpretation – my concern is that
the proposal does leave such room and it
is what we presented to the COs for
approval. Dealing with interpretation is
what implementation and WS2 are basically
set up to do. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Those are my thoughts on this point and I
commend those on both sides for their
insights and intent.
</p>
<p> </p>
<p>David McAuley</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
Greg Shatan [mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a></a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 25, 2016 7:09
PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gregory, Holly<br>
<b>Cc:</b> McAuley, David; Dr. Tatiana
Tropina; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
target="_blank">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>; Sidley ICANN CCWG; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com"
target="_blank">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a></a></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT]
inconsistency in bylaws spotted</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Holly
and All,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">I'm
concerned that by reverting to
the language in the Proposal, we
are perpetuating the language
that led to confusion in the
first place. It should be clear
that this is a "business as
usual" process of Chartering
Organization review of a
CCWG-Accountability consensus
recommendations, just as was
done with the Proposal. i would
suggest adding the following
clarifying language:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">“(a)
The Core Value set forth in
Section 1.2(b)(viii) shall have
no force or effect unless and
until a framework of
interpretation for human rights
(“FOI-HR”) is approved by (i)
the CCWG-Accountability as a
consensus recommendation in Work
Stream 2 <i><u>(including
Chartering Organizations’
approval
</u></i></span><b><i><u><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:red">as
set forth in the
CCWG-Accountability
Charter</span></u></i></b><i><u><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">),
and </span></u></i><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> (ii) <s>each
of the CCWG-Accountability’s
chartering organizations and
(iii)</s> the Board (in the
case of the Board, using the
same process and criteria used
by the Board to consider the
Work Stream 1 Recommendations).”</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">I
look forward to your thoughts.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Greg</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Apr 25,
2016 at 3:48 PM, Gregory, Holly
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com"
target="_blank">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Dear
CCWG-Accountability,
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">We
have been following this
email stream and in
re-reading the language of
the Bylaws we understand how
the language could be
misread to call for a
standard higher than what is
intended. Therefore we
propose that a clarification
would be helpful.
Specifically, to remove any
confusion and help assure
that the Bylaws are read in
a manner that is consistent
with the proposal, we
recommend the following
clarifying change to Section
27.3: </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">“(a)
The Core Value set forth in
Section 1.2(b)(viii) shall
have no force or effect
unless and until a framework
of interpretation for human
rights (“FOI-HR”) is
approved by (i) the
CCWG-Accountability as a
consensus recommendation in
Work Stream 2
<i><u>(including Chartering
Organizations’
approval), and </u></i> (ii)
<s>each of the
CCWG-Accountability’s
chartering organizations
and (iii)</s> the Board
(in the case of the Board,
using the same process and
criteria used by the Board
to consider the Work Stream
1 Recommendations).” </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">If
you agree, we recommend that
you include this in the
CCWG’s public comment.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Kind
regards,
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Holly
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">HOLLY</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> <b>J.
GREGORY</b></span><span
style="color:#1f497d"><br>
</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Partner
and Co-Chair<br>
Corporate Governance &
Executive Compensation
Practice Group</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Sidley
Austin LLP</span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><br>
787 Seventh Avenue<br>
New York, NY 10019<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20212%20839%205853" target="_blank">+1 212 839 5853</a></span><span
style="color:#1f497d"><br>
</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com"
title="Click to send
email to Gregory, Holly"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a></a></span><span
style="color:#1f497d"><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.sidley.com/" title="www.sidley.com" target="_blank"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">www.sidley.com</span></a></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.sidley.com/"
target="_blank"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";border:solid
windowtext
1.0pt;padding:0in;text-decoration:none"><img
src="cid:part14.03010703.03070607@mpicc.de" alt="Image removed by
sender.
http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png"
border="0" width="35"
height="35"></span></a><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> <b>SIDLEY
AUSTIN LLP</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<span class="">
<hr color="#58595b" width="200" align="left">
<span
style="font-size:x-small;color:#004b8d;font-weight:bold">Brett</span><span
style="font-size:x-small;color:#004b8d;font-weight:bold"></span>
<span
style="font-size:x-small;color:#004b8d;font-weight:bold">Schaefer</span><span
style="font-size:x-small;color:#58595b;font-weight:normal;font-style:italic"><br>
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International
Regulatory Affairs</span><span
style="font-size:x-small;color:#58595b;font-weight:normal;font-style:italic"></span><span
style="font-size:x-small;color:#58595b;font-weight:normal;font-style:italic"><br>
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute
for National Security and Foreign Policy</span><br>
<font color="#58595b" size="2">The Heritage Foundation<br>
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br>
Washington, DC 20002</font><span
style="font-size:x-small;color:#58595b"><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:202-608-6097"
value="+12026086097" target="_blank">202-608-6097</a></span><br>
<font color="#004b8d" size="2"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
style="COLOR:#004b8d;TEXT-DECORATION:none"
href="http://heritage.org/" target="_blank">heritage.org</a><br>
<span style="font-size:x-small"></span><span
style="font-size:x-small"></span>
</font>
</span>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-top:solid
#b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt
0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in">
<b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a></a> [mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a></a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>McAuley,
David<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday,
April 25, 2016 2:12 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Dr. Tatiana
Tropina; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a></a></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re:
[CCWG-ACCT]
inconsistency in
bylaws spotted</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in">
</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in">In
my personal opinion, I
think Tatiana was correct
in observing that there
can be different
interpretations in this
respect.
</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"> </p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in">I
respectfully don’t think
we can now say that
decision making regarding
the FoI in WS2 is simply
based on the charter. The
charter set WS1 in motion
and in WS1 we specifically
agreed that the HR bylaw
will not enter into force
until, among other things,
an FoI is developed as a
consensus WS2
recommendation “(including
Chartering Organizations’
approval)” – we cannot
delete that quoted bylaw
language as it means
something.
</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"> </p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in">Here
is what the draft
bylaw-language in the
proposal provides:</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"> </p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in">“Within
its Core Values, ICANN
will commit to respect
internationally recognized
Human Rights as required
by applicable law. This
provision does not create
any additional obligation
for ICANN to respond to or
consider any complaint,
request, or demand seeking
the enforcement of Human
Rights by ICANN. This
Bylaw provision will not
enter into force until (1)
a Framework of
Interpretation for Human
Rights (FOI-HR) is
developed by the
CCWG-Accountability as a
consensus recommendation
in Work Stream 2
(including Chartering
Organizations’ approval)
and (2) the FOI-HR is
approved by the ICANN
Board using the same
process and criteria it
has committed to use to
consider the Work Stream 1
recommendations.”</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"> </p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in">If
that requires further
clarity it seems to me
that it will need to be
developed in WS2 given
that our charge now is to
see if the bylaws draft
tracks the final
proposal. In this respect
it appears to do so.</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"> </p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in">David
McAuley</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in">
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-top:solid
#b5c4df
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in
0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in">
<b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a></a> [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a></a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Dr.
Tatiana Tropina<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday,
April 24, 2016 4:42
PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re:
[CCWG-ACCT]
inconsistency in
bylaws spotted</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
Hi all,<br>
I certainly understand
that there can be
different interpretations
of the intent of the
report.
<br>
<br>
The item (ii) of the bylaw
in the report says: "<b>consensus
recommendation in Work
Stream 2
</b>(including Chartering
Organizations’ approval)".
<br>
<br>
We have even have
different thresholds for
consensus in the report
itself, which one is
applicable here? What is
the process for reaching
this consensus? The same
as for WS1? Then we might
need a reference to WS1
may be? Furthermore: will
everything developed in
the WS2 require a full
consensus and approval of
all COs? I read the
chapter in the bylaws
about WS2 and it refers to
the process and charter of
WS1. No requirement for
full consensus or approval
of the all the COs there.
Why does not HR bylaw
refer to the previous
section in the bylaw that
specifically outlines the
requirements for Ws, but
introduces the approval of
all COs instead? I don't
mind this, but the
clarification seems to be
necessary.
<br>
<br>
Is there already a
definition of consensus
for the purpose of the WS2
and if yes, is it the same
that has been introduced
for HR FOI in HR bylaw
text? This is my
question.
<br>
<br>
If the answer is "yes" -
then there is no
inconsistency. However, I
agree with Niels that this
should be clarified, so we
all will be on the same
page.
<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Tanya </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in">
On 24/04/16 20:44, Seun
Ojedeji wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p
style="margin-left:.5in">Hi,</p>
<p
style="margin-left:.5in">Are
you saying that the
bylaw text is different
from the intent of the
report as I don't think
that is the case. The
report indeed required
approval of the CO which
was rightly reflected as
item ii in the bylaw
text.</p>
<p
style="margin-left:.5in">I
therefore think the
bylaw text is consistent
with the intent of the
report.</p>
<p
style="margin-left:.5in">Regards</p>
<p
style="margin-left:.5in">Sent
from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity
and typos</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in">
On 24 Apr 2016 7:01
p.m., "Niels ten
Oever" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net">lists@nielstenoever.net</a></a>>
wrote:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in">
<br>
Dear all,<br>
<br>
I hope this email
finds you well. Upon
re-reading the bylaw
text I came<br>
across the following
issue which does not
seem to be in
accordance with<br>
what we agreed in WS1.<br>
<br>
The CCWG report says
where it comes to
Human Rights:<br>
<br>
[ccwg report]<br>
<br>
“Within its Core
Values, ICANN will
commit to respect
internationally<br>
recognized<br>
Human Rights as
required by applicable
law. This provision
does not<br>
create any<br>
additional obligation
for ICANN to respond
to or consider any<br>
complaint, request,<br>
or demand seeking the
enforcement of Human
Rights by ICANN. This
Bylaw<br>
provision will not
enter into force until
(1) a Framework of<br>
Interpretation for
Human<br>
Rights (FOI-HR) is
developed by the
CCWG-Accountability as
a consensus<br>
recommendation in
Work Stream 2
(including Chartering
Organizations’<br>
approval)<br>
and (2) the FOI-HR is
approved by the ICANN
Board using the same<br>
process and<br>
<br>
criteria it has
committed to use to
consider the Work
Stream 1<br>
recommendations.”<br>
<br>
[/ccwg report]<br>
<br>
But when I look at the
bylaw text it says:<br>
<br>
[proposed bylaw]<br>
<br>
The Core Value set
forth in Section
1.2(b)(viii) shall
have no force or<br>
effect unless and
until a framework of
interpretation for
human rights<br>
(“FOI-HR”) is approved
by (i) the
CCWG-Accountability as
a consensus<br>
recommendation in Work
Stream 2, (ii) each of
the
CCWG-Accountability’s<br>
chartering
organizations and
(iii) the Board (in
the case of the Board,<br>
using the same process
and criteria used by
the Board to consider
the<br>
Work Stream 1
Recommendations).<br>
<br>
[/proposed bylaw]<br>
<br>
Now it is explicitly
required that all
Chartering
Organizations approve<br>
the Framework of
Interpretation,
whereas during WS1 it
was agreed that<br>
for WS2 we would use
exactly the same
process of approval as
for WS1.<br>
<br>
What makes this even
more divergent is that
this clause is only
added<br>
for Human Rights in
the proposed bylaws
and not for any other
bylaw.<br>
Whereas there was no
exceptional procedure
for human rights
discussed<br>
for WS2.<br>
<br>
What I propose is to
refer to the charter
of the CCWG on
Accountability<br>
for the decision
making of all
processes in WS2
(including the
decision<br>
making on the FoI on
Human Rights) and not
create separate or new<br>
requirements or
processes.<br>
<br>
All the best,<br>
<br>
Niels<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Niels ten Oever<br>
Head of Digital<br>
<br>
Article 19<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.article19.org&d=CwMFAg&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=CW0HijJt950Jj0TnSs0Uu9zc0aeHn-COr3a24oHd6IM&s=NcvlJyYsf1dukFULmFMt12-UJRg0HtYLbYCN8XiVDjo&e="
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.article19.org">www.article19.org</a></a><br>
<br>
PGP fingerprint
8D9F C567 BEE4 A431
56C4<br>
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D
68E9<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></a><br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFAg&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=CW0HijJt950Jj0TnSs0Uu9zc0aeHn-COr3a24oHd6IM&s=Ke7m0Wc1WOPvT-zpltBPQ4xvdcoE_ZdB2l0cdHhY7go&e="
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></a></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
</p>
<pre style="margin-left:.5in">_______________________________________________</pre>
<pre style="margin-left:.5in">Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</pre>
<pre style="margin-left:.5in"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:.5in"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFAg&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=CW0HijJt950Jj0TnSs0Uu9zc0aeHn-COr3a24oHd6IM&s=Ke7m0Wc1WOPvT-zpltBPQ4xvdcoE_ZdB2l0cdHhY7go&e=" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in">
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p>****************************************************************************************************<br>
This e-mail is sent by a law
firm and may contain information
that is privileged or
confidential.<br>
If you are not the intended
recipient, please delete the
e-mail and any attachments and
notify us<br>
immediately.<br>
<br>
****************************************************************************************************</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>