<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<div>Just to clarify, we believe that the Articles and Bylaws should be read together for a full understanding of how the CCWG Proposal is implemented. We have provided a draft of the Articles. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Sent with Good (www.good.com)<br>
<strong>
<div><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"> </font></div>
</strong>
<hr tabindex="-1">
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> Rosemary E. Fei<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 24, 2016 05:46:31 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Steve DelBianco<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Samantha.Eisner@icann.org; bylaws-coord@icann.org; ICANN-Adler; Sidley ICANN CCWG<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [bylaws-coord] Following up on Lawyers Comments on Draft ICANN Bylaws<br>
</font><br>
<div></div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">That's in the draft we gave ICANN Legal to review a while back. Our understanding from ICANN Legal is that the Articles are on a more relaxed time line than the Bylaws. I think that's why we haven't received comments back from them yet.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Sent from mobile<br>
<br>
Rosemary E. Fei<br>
Adler & Colvin<br>
415/421-7555<tel:415/421-7555> (phone)<br>
rfei@adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com><br>
www.adlercolvin.com<<a href="http://www.adlercolvin.com/">http://www.adlercolvin.com/</a>><br>
_____________________________<br>
The information in this e-mail message and any attachments may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited.
If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at rfei@adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>, and delete all copies of this message and its attachments, if any. Thank you.<br>
<br>
On May 24, 2016, at 3:27 AM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Please don’t forget to amend the Articles of Incorporation, such that changes require 75% approval of the Designators.<br>
<br>
From: <bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Rosemary E. Fei" <rfei@adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>><br>
Date: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 5:58 AM<br>
To: "Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>" <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>, "bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>" <bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>>, "ccwg-accountability5@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>"
<ccwg-accountability5@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>><br>
Cc: ICANN-Adler <ICANN@adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, "'bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:'bylaws-coord@icann.org>'" <bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>><br>
Subject: [bylaws-coord] Following up on Lawyers Comments on Draft ICANN Bylaws<br>
<br>
Dear All:<br>
<br>
Following up on the four items listed in Holly’s email from Friday (forwarded below), we proposed the following language to address each of them:<br>
<br>
<br>
o Recommendation #3 -- Section 1.1(d)(ii)(A): “Review the language to ensure it is consistent with the CCWG Proposal and captures the scope of the grandfathering contemplated in the CCWG Proposal as further developed in CCWG discussions after the CCWG Proposal
was issued.”<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
We propose to edit the referenced section to read as follows:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
(A) (1) all registry agreements and registrar accreditation agreements between ICANN and registry operators or registrars in force on [1 October 2016], including, in each case, any terms or conditions therein that are not contained in the underlying form of
registry agreement and registrar accreditation agreement; (2) any registry agreement or registrar accreditation agreement not encompassed by (1) above to the extent its terms do not vary materially from the form of registry agreement or registrar accreditation
agreement that existed on [1 October 2016]; and<br>
<br>
o Recommendation #5 – Section 4.3(s): “The CCWG Proposal was silent as to the means for ensuring that an independent IRP Panel would complete the IRP within six months and this should be addressed in the Rules of Procedure. Consideration should also be given
to whether the sentence that begins “For the avoidance of doubt” is necessary to assure that an IRP Panel failure to meet the six-month deadline is not grounds for a new IRP against ICANN.”<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
To reduce the likelihood of unsuccessful IRP claims being brought based on delayed IRP decisions, we propose to edit the referenced section to read as follows:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
An IRP Panel should complete an IRP proceeding expeditiously, issuing an early scheduling order and its written decision no later than six months after the filing of the Claim, except as otherwise permitted under the Rules of Procedure. The preceding sentence
does not provide the basis for a Covered Action.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
o Recommendation #7 – Section 4.6(c)(v): “The [SSR] review is already late per the Affirmation of Commitments, and would also be late according to the new Bylaws. However, an appropriate correction to avoid this default situation could be implemented.”<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
To avoid the default situation, we propose to edit the referenced section to read as follows:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
(v) The SSR Review shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years, measured from the date the previous SSR Review Team was convened, except that the first SSR Review to be conducted after [1 October 2016] shall be deemed be timely if its SSR Review
Team is convened on or before [date].<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
o Recommendation #8 – Section 4.6(e)(v): “[T]he [Directory Service] review is already late per the Affirmation of Commitments, and would also be late according to the new Bylaws. However, an appropriate correction to avoid this default situation could be
implemented.”<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
To avoid the default situation, we propose to edit the referenced section to read as follows:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
(v) The Directory Service Review shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years, measured from the date the previous Directory Service Review Team was convened, except that the first Directory Service Review to be conducted after [1 October 2016]
shall be deemed be timely if its Directory Service Review Team is convened on or before [date].<br>
<br>
<br>
Finally, with respect to the inconsistency in the CCWG Proposal regarding the effective date of Standard Bylaw amendments: we recommend using 30 days, rather than 28, in Section 25.1(e)(i)(A).<br>
<br>
Rosemary and Holly<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Holly Gregory<br>
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 12:56 PM<br>
To: Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org><br>
Cc: mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>; thomas@rickert.net<<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net">mailto:thomas@rickert.net</a>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; 'bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:'bylaws-coord@icann.org>'; turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>;
Rosemary E. Fei; ICANN-Adler; Sidley ICANN CCWG<br>
Subject: Status: Lawyers Comments on Draft ICANN Bylaws<br>
<br>
Dear Sam,<br>
<br>
Attached please find a chart with proposed revisions to the ICANN Bylaws addressing certain of the CCWG comments provided on May 13, as well as corrections of typographical errors and conforming changes from our proofreading. After the comment period closes
we will propose language to address the following additional items from the CCWG comment:<br>
<br>
<br>
o Recommendation #3 -- Section 1.1(d)(ii)(A): “Review the language to ensure it is consistent with the CCWG Proposal and captures the scope of the grandfathering contemplated in the CCWG Proposal as further developed in CCWG discussions after the CCWG Proposal
was issued.”<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
o Recommendation #5 – Section 4.3(s): “The CCWG Proposal was silent as to the means for ensuring that an independent IRP Panel would complete the IRP within six months and this should be addressed in the Rules of Procedure. Consideration should also be given
to whether the sentence that begins “For the avoidance of doubt” is necessary to assure that an IRP Panel failure to meet the six-month deadline is not grounds for a new IRP against ICANN.”<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
o Recommendation #7 – Section 4.6(c)(v): “The [SSR] review is already late per the Affirmation of Commitments, and would also be late according to the new Bylaws. However, an appropriate correction to avoid this default situation could be implemented.”<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
o Recommendation #8 – Section 4.6(e)(v): “[T]he [Directory Service] review is already late per the Affirmation of Commitments, and would also be late according to the new Bylaws. However, an appropriate correction to avoid this default situation could be
implemented.”<br>
<br>
<br>
In addition, there is one item on which we need guidance from the Bylaws Coordinating Group or the CCWG relating to Section 25.1(e): The CCWG Proposal is internally inconsistent on when Standard Bylaw Amendments take effect. Annex 2, Paragraph 30 provides
for a 28 day period, and Annex 4, Paragraph 32 provides for a 30 day period in both instances following the Rejection Action Board Notification Date. We need direction on which time period should be used – 28 days or 30 days.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Holly and Rosemary<br>
HOLLY J. GREGORY<br>
Partner and Co-Chair<br>
Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Group<br>
Sidley Austin LLP<br>
787 Seventh Avenue<br>
New York, NY 10019<br>
+1 212 839 5853<br>
holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com><br>
www.sidley.com<<a href="http://www.sidley.com/">http://www.sidley.com/</a>><br>
[<a href="http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png]<http://www.sidley.com/">http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png]<http://www.sidley.com/</a>> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
****************************************************************************************************<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>
****************************************************************************************************<br>
<br>
<image001.jpg><br>
</div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>