<p dir="ltr">Hi Mathieu,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Thanks for letting us know this is Infact in the spirit of the report. On that note, I will support leaving things as proposed and hope that the scenario painted by Malcolm never happens and if it does, it can only happen once, as other measures like board spilling could kick in. ;-) </p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers!<br>
Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 4 May 2016 3:47 p.m., "Mathieu Weill" <<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="FR" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d">Dear Colleagues, <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d">Paragraph 14 of Annex 4 of our supplemental report states : <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">A community decision to reject a budget or a plan after it has been approved by the ICANN<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Board will be based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">the needs of ICANN stakeholders;<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community. <b>The veto could only concern<u></u><u></u></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">issues that had been raised in the public consultations conducted before the Board approved the<u></u><u></u></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">budget or plan.<u></u><u></u></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">(emphasis added) <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d">I believe our lawyers have been diligent in ensuring this requirement is taken into account. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d">Best,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d">Mathieu<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">De :</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>] <br><b>Envoyé :</b> mercredi 4 mai 2016 15:25<br><b>À :</b> Mathieu Weill<br><b>Cc :</b> <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br><b>Objet :</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A)<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">Dear All,<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Did we specifically agreed in CCWG the need for a)" rationale" <br>And b) indoor the conditions that such rationale is based on "one or more significant issues raised during the public comment"?<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">May you refresh our mind by citing the corresponding paragraph in CCWG REC.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Moreover, if such issue is not raised during the public comment no action could be taken to reject ..,.,<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Is this is not intended to reduce , diminish or make it impossible for any entity to proceed with a petition in that regard?<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">May you further clarify the matter<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Regards<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Kavouss<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><br>Sent from my iPhone<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>On 4 May 2016, at 08:43, Mathieu Weill <<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p></div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d">Dear Colleagues, </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d">As a follow up from the call yesterday, please find below a note from our lawyers regarding one of the points we discussed. This is related to the requirement to provide rationale when initiating a community power escalation process. </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d">Best,</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d">Mathieu</span><u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></b><u></u><u></u></p></div><div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><hr size="2" width="100%" align="center"></span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Grapsas, Rebecca<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 03, 2016 05:24:00 PM<br><b>To:</b> Gregory, Holly<br><b>Subject:</b> Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A)</span><u></u><u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dear Co-Chairs,</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">On today’s CCWG call, a concern was raised regarding the requirement to provide “specific rationales” in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) (pasted below). As discussed below, this provision is consistent with the CCWG Proposal.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US">As I noted in the chat during today’s call, the general requirement for the Petitioning Decisional Participant to provide a rationale for the rejection petition (i.e., the first part of (A), highlighted in yellow) was included to reflect Annex 2, Paragraph 32 (first bullet, first sub-bullet)), which provides that “Within 24 hours of a petition being approved, the petitioning Decisional Participant will: Circulate a detailed rationale for proposing to use the Community Power to all Decisional Participants. Any SO or AC may contribute preliminary thoughts or questions in writing via a specific publicly archived email list set up for this specific issue….”</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US">The language in (A) highlighted in green was included to reflect Annex 4, Paragraphs 12 and 14:</span><u></u><u></u></p><p style="text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Symbol">·</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span><span lang="EN-US">Paragraph 12: “The CCWG-Accountability has determined that a separate petition would be required for each budget or strategic/operating plan being challenged. A budget or strategic/operating plan could only be challenged if there are significant issue(s) brought up in the engagement process that were not addressed prior to approval.”</span><u></u><u></u></p><p style="text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Symbol">·</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span><span lang="EN-US">Paragraph 14: “A community decision to reject a budget or a plan after it has been approved by the ICANN Board will be based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community. The veto could only concern issues that had been raised in the public consultations conducted before the Board approved the budget or plan.”</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Given that a budget or plan can only be rejected based on “perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community”, the Bylaw was drafted to limit the ability to escalate rejection of a budget or plan to situations where the rationale includes one or more of those specified items.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span lang="EN-US">Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A):</span></u></b><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">(c) A Decisional Participant that has received a Rejection Action Petition shall either accept or reject such Rejection Action Petition; provided that a Decisional Participant may only accept such Rejection Action Petition if it was received by such Decisional Participant during the Rejection Action Petition Period. </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">(i) If, in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.2(c) of this Annex D, a Decisional Participant accepts a Rejection Action Petition during the Rejection Action Petition Period, the Decisional Participant shall promptly provide to the EC Administration, the other Decisional Participants and the Secretary written notice (“Rejection Action Petition Notice”) of such acceptance (such Decisional Participant, the “Rejection Action Petitioning Decisional Participant”), and ICANN shall promptly post such Rejection Action Petition Notice on the Website. The Rejection Action Petition Notice shall also include: </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black;background:yellow">(A) the rationale upon which rejection of the Rejection Action is sought. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black;background:lime">Where the Rejection Action Petition Notice relates to an ICANN Budget, an IANA Budget, an Operating Plan or a Strategic Plan, the Rejection Action Petition Notice shall not be valid and shall not be accepted by the EC Administration unless the rationale set forth in the Rejection Action Petition Notice is based on one or more significant issues that were specifically raised in the applicable public comment period(s) relating to perceived inconsistencies with the Mission, purpose and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN’s stakeholders, financial stability, or other matter of concern to the community;</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) as included in the April 20 draft of the Bylaws is consistent with the CCWG Proposal.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Best regards,</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Holly</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">HOLLY</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> <b>J. GREGORY</b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#1f497d"><br></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Partner and Co-Chair<br>Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Group</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Sidley Austin LLP</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><br>787 Seventh Avenue<br>New York, NY 10019<br><a href="tel:%2B1%20212%20839%205853" value="+12128395853" target="_blank">+1 212 839 5853</a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#1f497d"><br></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com" title="Click to send email to Gregory, Holly" target="_blank">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#1f497d"><br><a 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><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div></div><p><span lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p><span lang="EN-US">****************************************************************************************************<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>****************************************************************************************************</span><u></u><u></u></p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">_______________________________________________<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" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></blockquote></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>