<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Holly and Rosemary,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Thank you for your cogent email. I would support the Streamlined Option. One thing to clarify is the "automatic" nature of the Streamlined Option. Will the EC have the discretion to decide not to initiate mediation, or is mediation itself initiated automatically? It appears to be the former (which I support), but ask for clarification.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Thanks!</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 Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Rosemary E. Fei via bylaws-coord <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org" target="_blank">bylaws-coord@icann.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Dear Bylaws Coordination Group:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">On the call this past Tuesday morning (Pacific time), Becky and I were unable to recall the issue for CCWG consideration that was raised on one of the slides.
We have now retrieved a more complete description of the issue, regarding Section
</span><span style="color:black">4.1, on the process for initiating mediation as the first step toward a Community IRP, and again request CCWG clarification.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">During the LA meeting, counsel identified that the process to initiate mediation, if the Board fails to comply with an EC decision, was not described in the Proposal. Section 4.1 was introduced during the Bylaw
drafting stage at the request of the Bylaws Coordination Group to address this, and describes a new escalation process, following all typical steps (petition, community forum, etc.) in order for the EC to proceed to mediation. (This is the Current Draft Option.)</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">An alternative that would be entirely consistent with the Proposal’s silence, would be to mandate the EC Chairs Council
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">to give notice to initiate mediation automatically, in order to streamline the process, eliminating any escalation to commence mediation, and then authorize the EC Chairs Council to participate
in the mediation in consultation with the Decisional Participants following their internal processes. (A full escalation process would still be required after mediation, to initiate an IRP.) (This is the Streamlined Option.)</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">CCWG counsel prefer the Streamlined Option, if it is acceptable to the CCWG.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">
ICANN Legal has also agreed to it.</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">We note that another issue on which the Proposal is silent and on which counsel would like clarification, concerns the breadth of the special SO/PDP rule (requiring
the SO that was the source of a PDP to support escalation to challenge that PDP). CCWG has already confirmed that the special rule should apply to Fundamental Bylaws changes, in addition to Standard Bylaws changes as provided by the Proposal. We would also
like to know if the special SO/PDP rule should be applied to initiating mediation, or only to initiation of Community IRPs. However, if the CCWG concludes on the preceding issue that mediation will not require any escalation process at all, this issue would
be resolved as well.</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">With kind regards,</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">Holly and Rosemary</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
bylaws-coord mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org">bylaws-coord@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>