<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:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@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;}
/* 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.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
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;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
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="color:#1F497D">Thanks Alan. It’s the desire to set up a situation which readily achieves the necessary 3/4 EC approval of the ByLaws amendments that causes me to ask these clarifying questions re the exact nature of CCWG Consensus
and making that clear in the Proposed Final Report.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Regarding the mechanism to be chosen, there is something about the way PTI was set up (as further described by Samantha and as further set out in the ByLaws in Section 16) that looks very “clean” to me in terms
of clearly identifying recommended ByLaws changes as to the permitted Accountability challenges and those which will become inapplicable.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">In addition, I note that Accountability Work stream 2 implementation is not complete. So, for example, having worked actively on one of the Subgroups in Accountability Workstream 2, I have to ask how the Chartering
Organizations may consider the CCWG recommendations in relation to the risk of challenges once the Work stream 2 Recommendations are finalized and implemented. Would there be, for example, an available challenge re violation of the ByLaws (as amended to
implement Workstream 2) based on an alleged Human Rights violation by ICANN in the administration of the Auction Funds? It seems to me that if ICANN employs 20 additional staff as contemplated in Mechanism A, that risk is increased. (20 staff is assumed
across all Mechanisms.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I would be inclined to assess the risk as being lower where administration and grants are concentrated in an entity other than ICANN. In the case of Mechanism B, risk reduction would be due to the expert independent
contractor relationship, though admittedly ICANN controls the RFP process and would be supplying some of the staff as well as adding the function to its budgeting and audit processes. In the case of Mechanism C, risk reduction would be due to the independent
Board of Directors and independent staffing, as it is with PTI. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">If valid, these observations may bear on the draft Proposed Final Report at page 19, including Marika’s request for further clarification [MK6] about what is meant by “a healthy degree of independence” and what
the CCWG hopes to achieve with that goal generally (and not just in relation to the possible establishment of a foundation.) I would say the goal of a “healthy degree of independence” is controlling risk of expensive challenges to ICANN and its Board and
to the Auction Proceeds per se. In other words, the greater distance ICANN maintains from the grant-making process, while still exercising its fiduciary oversight duties, the lower the risk to ICANN, its Board, and the funds.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Of course risk reduction has to be balanced against costs. In this regard, it would be helpful to have some additional information. For example, how does headcount cost for 20 people to be hired in ICANN compare
to the fees for hiring an expert pre-existing non-profit? Can a foundation be set up using ICANN in-house legal staff or must we go to outside counsel? (Here I am thinking about questions that will be asked by members of the CSG constituencies.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Anne<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="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"> Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, November 19, 2019 12:51 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com>; Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org><br>
<b>Cc:</b> ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanism A - Internal Department at ICANN<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">[EXTERNAL]</span></strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I agree that we should make a simple statement that ICANN's accountability measures cannot be used in relation to Auction Proceeds grant requests (regardless of who might file them). This has nothing to do with the approval of annual budgets.
If the EC decides that the tranch allocated in the budget is not appropriate, it can still take action under its powers. We are proposing nothing related to the powers of the EC itself.<br>
<br>
I presume the Board will ultimately approve whatever it approves contingent on the Fundamental Bylaw change being approved by the EC. If the EC does not approve it, we are back to square one (or somewhere, but do not have an Auction Proceeds plan that is workable).<br>
<br>
If there are auction proceeds from further rounds, AND the ICANN Board decides they go into te same post as we have now, fine. If there are no auction proceeds or if they are designated for something else. fine.<br>
<br>
Regarding Bylaws 25.4, note that the lead-in words are "for avoidance of doubt". The earlier section of 25 explicitly call out the process which is led by the Board. We have already approved a fundamental Bylaw change and the process is understood (I speak
as a former member of the EC Administration).<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
At 19/11/2019 01:31 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Erika, Becky, et al,<br>
<br>
<b>Proposed Final Report and Consensus<br>
</b> <br>
I believe there was CCWG consensus regarding the need for a Fundamental ByLaws change as to the unavailability of Request for Reconsideration (RFR) and Independent Review Panel (IRP) in relation to
<u>applicants</u> vis-Ã -vis the grant-making process. Here, the CCWG makes a NEW recommendation on page 23 of the Proposed Final report in relation to remedies available to applicants for grants. This recommendation does not cover the possibility of RFR
and IRP that might be filed by someone other than an applicant and I believe that risk must be controlled as well. (It’s possible persons other than applicants could file an RFR or an IRP in relation to ICANN’s handling of the grant-making process.)
The Proposed Final Report should likely also reflect that this requires a Fundamental ByLaws change requiring approval by 3/4 of the EC because public commenters need to know this.<br>
<br>
In the limited tracking I have done prior to becoming the voting rep for the CSG Chartering organization, I don’t recall any specific discussions in relation to a ByLaws amendment relative to the powers of the Empowered Community established in the revisions
to the ByLaws made in 2016 as a result of the Accountability Workstream 1 work. Did the CCWG discuss these specific Empowered Community powers in relation to the Budget relative to use of Auction Proceeds? Should the CCWG clarify that we are not recommending
ByLaws changes in relation to EC powers? And if we do, does that make individual grants subject to EC powers (a result the CCWG does not want.)<br>
<br>
To be specific, it does not appear to me from the Proposed Final Report that there has ever been a CCWG Consensus Recommendation in relation to (a) availability of RFR and IRP to persons other than applicants for grants or (b) any effect on the EC powers memorialized
in 2016 in relation to the use of Auction Proceeds funds. <br>
I sincerely hope we can clarify that the CCWG is not recommending that the Empowered Community give up the Accountability processes contained in the ByLaws in relation to Budgeting of funds obtained via Auction Proceeds. In my view as an active member of
Subsequent Procedures, this is a long term concern since the Sub Pro WG is quite likely to confirm that auctions will remain the mechanism of last resort in string contention far into the future. While I understand that “ability to Sunset†is important
in relation to the principle of not trying to establish a long term principal endowment, it does seem appropriate to consider that future new gTLD rounds were always intended and are likely to proceed at some point. Thus, future auctions are likely to result
in additional auction proceeds.<br>
<br>
Again, in order to be crystal clear on page 23 of the Proposed Final Report, it would also be helpful if Samantha could clarify how specific ByLaws amendments can be proposed based on the CCWG recommendations. The ByLaws seem to provide in Article 25 that
this cannot be “directly proposed†by the CCWG itself so I assume that what the CCWG recommends would need to then lead to a formulation by the Board of a specific ByLaws amendment. See attached section 25.4.
<br>
<br>
Accordingly, in relation to the Proposed Final Report, I believe that the Recommendation (NEW) on page 23 should be reworked to clarify the CCWG Recommendations in relation to the needed ByLaws amendments.<br>
<b> <br>
Choice of Mechanism and Survey<br>
</b> <br>
Separately, in regard to the description of risk management I will need to provide to the CSG, I am trying to clarify whether it would be advisable (for the Board, ICANN org, the Community, and the grant recipients themselves) to structure as follows:<br>
<br>
(1) Fundamental ByLaws change to remove RFR and IRP from (a) remedies for applicants for the funds (b) remedies for anyone else who may have standing to file against ICANN decisions about Budgeting re use of funds inside the org and (b) ICANN decisions about
how much to allot to grant-making in “tranchesâ€.<br>
<br>
(2) Preserve EC Powers as they stand in the ByLaws in relation to general Budgeting for both (a) the ICANN org use of the Auction Proceeds funds and (b) ICANN org budgeting of “tranches†for grant-making purposes. EC powers as to the Budget process have
a much higher threshold for challenging ICANN’s accountability than do RFR and IRP. A challenge is not easily mounted and a forum must be convened, etc, etc. But I don’t think anyone would want the EC powers to apply to any individual grant. So it seems
we need to choose a structure that keeps the “Budget†aspect of an overall line item for grants within the EC Accountablity provisions but puts the individual grant-making outside the EC Accountablity powers. (Perhaps I am wrong that individual grant-making
could be subject to EC general powers if Mechanism A is utilized and if so, please advise. I just don’t think the CCWG actually has a Consensus on recommending a ByLaws change in relation to the EC accountability powers.)<br>
<br>
(3) To preserve the EC powers as to Budget, it would seem “cleaner†to place the actual individual grant-making processes outside ICANN org and have the CCWG recommend and the EC acknowledge that specific individual grants are not subject to the EC Budgeting
powers if <br>
(a) they are made by a pre-existing non-profit with expertise in grant-making working under the guidelines provided by the work of the CCWG and in accordance with the Board’s oversight responsibilities and fiduciary duties. (Mechanism B)<br>
(b) or they are made by an ICANN Foundation formed with an independent Board of Directors similar to the manner in which PTI was formed with ICANN as the sole member of the corporation and thus well able to conduct oversight and fiduciary responsibilities.
<br>
<br>
I appreciate any observations other CCWG members may have that will help bring me up to speed.<br>
<br>
Thank you,<br>
Anne<br>
<br>
<a name="_GoBack"><b>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese</b></a><b><br>
</b>Of Counsel<br>
520.629.4428 office<br>
520.879.4725 fax<br>
<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com">AAikman@lrrc.com</a><br>
_____________________________<br>
<img border="0" width="115" height="46" style="width:1.1979in;height:.4791in" id="_x0000_i1026" src="cid:7.1.0.9.2.20191119143355.008f7ce0@mcgill.ca.2" alt="[]"><br>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP<br>
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000<br>
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611<br>
<a href="http://lrrc.com/">lrrc.com</a><br>
<img border="0" width="120" height="39" style="width:1.25in;height:.4062in" id="_x0000_i1027" src="cid:7.1.0.9.2.20191119143355.008f7ce0@mcgill.ca.3" alt="[]"><br>
Because what matters<br>
to you, matters to us.™<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> Erika Mann <<a href="mailto:erika@erikamann.com">erika@erikamann.com</a>>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, November 19, 2019 7:52 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Becky Burr <<a href="mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org">becky.burr@board.icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Aikman-Scalese, Anne <<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com">AAikman@lrrc.com</a>>;
<a href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org">ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanism A - Internal Department at ICANN<br>
<br>
<b>[EXTERNAL]<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b>
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</b></div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Becky - That’s what we agreed upon but in the light of Anne’s points raised, we should evaluate whether our judgement will not be contestable.
<br>
Erika <br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<br>
On Nov 19, 2019, at 3:33 PM, Becky Burr <<a href="mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org"> becky.burr@board.icann.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Anne,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">I think Sam is saying that Mechanisms A, B, and C would ALL require a fundamental bylaws change to eliminate the availability of IRP and Reconsideration with respect to individual grant awards. I think we had strong
consensus that decisions on individual grants should not be appealable using Reconsideration and IRP, and that a bylaws change should be pursued. Inasmuch as the EC agreed to a fundamental bylaws change in Montreal, it seems all members have established the
necessary processes. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Please correct me if I am wrong, Sam.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Becky<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 5:20 PM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com">AAikman@lrrc.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Thank you Samantha. I want to make sure I understand the implications for Accountability mechanisms and ByLaws amendments when presenting the options to the CSG. As an initial matter, could you please clarify
one question as to Article 25.4 OTHER AMENDMENTS. “Neither the EC, the Decisional Participants, the Supporting Organizations, the Advisory Committees nor any other entity or person shall have the power to directly propose amendments to these Bylawsâ€.
In this regard, I gather that the CCWG recommends and then the Board itself will specifically propose a Fundamental ByLaws amendment in relation to Auction Proceeds. Is that your understanding?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">It seems a bit unlikely that the EC will want to give up its powers in relation to the Budgeting process as regards the use of Auction Proceeds for (a) use for grant-making purposes (regardless of the mechanism
chosen) OR (b) internal use by ICANN Org in its own budget. (Perhaps that is why there is a bullet point in Board comment relative to the cost of complying with Accountability mechanisms. However, this cost is identified in that Board comment that now appears
on page 10 of the Proposed Final Draft as a cost associated ONLY with Mechanism A. The other mechanisms are listed in the Board input as requiring the further development of independent Accountability mechanisms so that is a bit confusing.) However, overall
Budgeting is of course different from the making of individual grants per se. I think we definitely need to protect individual grants from being revoked by the EC.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Fundamental ByLaws Changes<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">It appears that eliminating Request for Reconsideration (RFR) and Independent Review Panel (IRP) Accountability mechanisms would be a Fundamental ByLaws change requiring 3/4 approval from the Empowered Community
members (some of whom may not have implemented EC processes yet?) Can you confirm this? (Article 25).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Mechanism B<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">In Mechanism B, ICANN works with an outside contractor already set up for non-profit grant-making. In that case, it would seem that although overall Budget allocation and tranches may still be subject to Empowered
Community processes, individual grants made by the pre-existing expert non-profit would not necessarily be subject to being revoked through an EC process. In other words, working with a qualified expert grant-making organization could reduce risk, including
the risk to recipients of grants. (EC processes could theoretically be used to affect or influence the choice of the independent expert non-profit organization and the amount being allocated in any “trancheâ€.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Mechanism C<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Re Mechanism C, when PTI was formed, the structure chosen was ICANN as sole member of a California non-profit public benefit corporation (Article 16.2). I believe actions by the PTI Board of Directors remain subject
to Empowered Community accountability processes, but not to RFR and IRP, but am not sure. Can you confirm? If this is the case, could another California non-profit public benefit corporation be set up in the same manner for purposes of grant-making pursuant
to Mechanism C? (I am also wondering if outside legal resources were used to set up PTI or if this was done in-house.) In other words, could another CA non-profit formed pursuant to Mechanism C be exempted from RFR and IRP, but NOT be exempted from other
EC accountability mechanisms, in the same manner as the PTI formation was handled?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Many thanks for your patience with respect to questions which may already have been addressed in prior deliberations of the CCWG.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Anne<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">From: Samantha Eisner <<a href="mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org"> Samantha.Eisner@icann.org</a>>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 1:13 PM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com">AAikman@lrrc.com</a>>;
<a href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org">ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanism A - Internal Department at ICANN<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">[EXTERNAL]<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
One other note - to your final question of "Has legal advice been provided as to whether the formation of an independent foundation might avoid the need to amend the ICANN ByLaws with respect to IRP, RFR, and Empowered Community provisions?​"
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
From the legal perspective, we considered the interplay of the Bylaws/accountability processes with the different mechanisms and our conclusion is that, absent a Bylaws change to exclude individual grant actions from the IRP/Reconsideration processes, there
still remains a risk of the use of ICANN accountability processes whether the grant disbursements are completed through Mechanisms A, B or C. With that, the need to address the scope of the accountability mechanisms through Bylaws changes exists across all
three mechanisms.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
____<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
Samantha Eisner<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
Deputy General Counsel, ICANN<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
Los Angeles, California 90094<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
USA<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">From: Samantha Eisner<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 11:07 AM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; <a href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org">
ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanism A - Internal Department at ICANN
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
Thanks Anne. For clarity as we look internally at the potential Bylaws changes that could be needed, when you are considering the potential for a Bylaws change to confirm that the EC's power "does not apply to such grant-making​", are there particular reserved
powers that the EC holds to which you are referring? However the mechanism is formed (funding a supporting foundation through tranches or having an internal disbursement mechanism), there might be a need to consider the EC's ability to reject a budget/plan
on the basis of ICANN fulfilling the program based on the CCWG's recommendations. Are there other powers that you are also seeing as impacted?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
____<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
Samantha Eisner<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
Deputy General Counsel, ICANN<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
Los Angeles, California 90094<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
USA<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <<a href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org"> ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Aikman-Scalese, Anne <<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com">AAikman@lrrc.com</a>><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 4:41 PM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">To: <a href="mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org">
ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Auction Proceeds Mechanism A - Internal Department at ICANN
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><image001.gif><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">On the topics of “Accountability†and “Best Practicesâ€, has anyone looked at whether the grant-making function placed inside an internal department of ICANN would be subject to review under the Empowered
Community Accountablity rules? On page 10 of the current draft, there is a bullet point called “On-going costs only in Mechanism A – Management and support of ICANN’s accountabiliity<a name="m_-2246356919555067946__GoBack"></a> mechanisms triggered by
the grant distribution activity (if any.)†<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">In terms of risk assessment, I really can’t see the grant-making process being subject to the Empowered Community accountability procedures. On the other hand, I don’t know that the EC will readily accept amending
the ByLaws for purposes of getting the grant-making outside the EC process. This is especially true in that all the Accountability work was done in CCWGs in two lengthy work-streams. I apologize if this was previously discussed by the CCWG – doing my best
to catch up.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">< <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">If we think that the ByLaws would need to be amended not only to remove the availability of the Request for Reconsideration (RFR) and the Independent Review Panel (IRP), but also to be amended to state that the
power given to the Empowered Community does not apply to such grant-making, then we should say so in the Proposed Final Report.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Has legal advice been provided as to whether the formation of an independent foundation might avoid the need to amend the ICANN ByLaws with respect to IRP, RFR, and Empowered Community provisions?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Thank you,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Anne<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><image002.png><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Anne E. Aikman-Scalese<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Of Counsel<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">520.629.4428 office<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">520.879.4725 fax<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com">AAikman@lrrc.com</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">_____________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><image003.png><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=w1jlqVWntmqtI5dedIDLQ6uBxH_Jh-uBee_4imohzko&m=DB8yNqLg_VqhhcXk1GxpNXumrdQT6mErx0DIjhck6KM&s=SBsm27n-ReSszAO1_7uGCSHeddEWktj0EgGVJh1tdgc&e=">lrrc.com
[lrrc.com]</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><image004.jpg><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Because what matters<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">to you, matters to us.™<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee
or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee
or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><a href="mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org">Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy"> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos"> https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery
or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><a href="mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org">Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy"> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos"> https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery
or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:gray"><br>
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message
or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying
to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
<br>
</span><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org">Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy"> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos"> https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery
or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<hr>
<font face="Arial" color="Gray" size="1"><br>
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message
or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying
to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>