[client com] Input requested regarding Paragraph 106 of CWG Proposal

Maarten Simon maarten.simon at sidn.nl
Mon Apr 18 07:44:47 UTC 2016

I tend to agree with Greg that as the sentence ends with 'or other matters of concern to the community' it is not an issue to use the text as is in the proposal including ' purpose' and 'role' although these are not (formally) defined. I therefore support his alternative 1.

From: <cwg-client-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Date: Saturday 16 April 2016 at 18:33
To: Sharon Flanagan <sflanagan at sidley.com<mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com>>
Cc: "cwg-client at icann.org<mailto:cwg-client at icann.org>" <cwg-client at icann.org<mailto:cwg-client at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [client com] Input requested regarding Paragraph 106 of CWG Proposal

Since this is an open ended list (ending with "or other matters of concern to the community."), i don't think there's a big issue with including "purpose" and "role".  However, I do think these  terms are different in nature from the defined Mission, and from each other.  Purpose can be traced back to, and is essentially defined in Article 2 of the ICANN Articles of Incorporation; as such, it is similar to Mission in specificity.  Role on the other hand is completely ambiguous and undefined.

Alternatives may be:

1.  Leave as is -- ambiguity and all (but to my mind only "role" is ambiguous).
2.  Move role elsewhere in the list, without reference to the Articles and Bylaws -- however, this makes it even more ambiguous (as currently drafted, it's at least clear that the "role" needs to be derived from the Articles and Bylaws in some fashion.
3.  Eliminate "role" entirely -- but we then run the risk of losing a point that was being made by the CWG, since Role has a different connotation than Mission or Purpose, and has more to do with how the Mission and Purpose are carried out.


On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:28 PM, Flanagan, Sharon <sflanagan at sidley.com<mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com>> wrote:
Dear All,

There is language in the CWG proposal at paragraph 106 regarding budget approvals that refers to:  "The community may reject the ICANN Budget based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, mission and role set forth 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."

We're requesting confirmation that the Mission of ICANN as set forth in the Bylaws is synonymous with the "purpose, mission and role" of ICANN as set forth in ICANN's Articles and Bylaws for purposes of the CWG proposal.  The concern is that "purpose" and "role" are otherwise ambiguous and not defined, whereas the Mission is carefully articulated.



555 California Street
Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94104
+1 415 772 1271<tel:%2B1%20415%20772%201271>
sflanagan at sidley.com<mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com>

This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us


Cwg-client mailing list
Cwg-client at icann.org<mailto:Cwg-client at icann.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20160418/70e2c4b2/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Cwg-client mailing list