[client com] Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal

Flanagan, Sharon sflanagan at sidley.com
Wed Feb 24 15:08:55 UTC 2016

Dear Jonathan,

We can make the first line edit noted below.

With respect to the comment on structure, that is the approach that was taken on the prior comment letter – a statement of the CWG dependencies, a comment section on how the CCWG proposal addressed the dependency and a conclusion as to whether the dependency was met.  We had discussed with the committee shortening this comment letter by removing the comment sections.    In particular, given the conclusions that the dependency had been met, it did not appear that recapping the CCWG proposal was necessary.  However, we are happy to add back the comment sections and update for the current CCWG proposal.  I don’t know if that can be done in 24 hours but we can certainly work towards that goal.  Please let us know.

Best regards,


Sidley Austin LLP
+1 415 772 1271
sflanagan at sidley.com<mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com>

From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info]
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:14 AM
To: Flanagan, Sharon; 'Client Committee'
Cc: 'Lise Fuhr'
Subject: RE: [client com] Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal

Dear Sharon,

We had some discussion on list with regard to this letter but as far as producing a revised draft, there is only one suggested change (see below).

Any links will need to be checked to ensure they reflect the actual final proposal and related documents as opposed to the draft.

The full report is here: https://community.icann.org/x/8w2AAw<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_8w2AAw&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=M3rwsTyNMTsSrNjjl2wpjY1sQALn2rPpcxAK31O8xYk&m=kadgmpw2h4TiUAs2a70dht9DNoHW7L5rozndguLBsCI&s=YbVscXXzTSZBggp0emk67fQGMTvIINWN-ljkDoUekks&e=>.

Please could you work the changes suggested below into your draft in order to make a final letter for review and consideration by the CWG at their meeting tomorrow.
If you could turn this around today (24 February), that will be most helpful.

If you are unclear or require further input or assistance on this matter, please revert to us ASAP.

Best wishes,



•        1.b says: “The ability to exercise oversight with respect to key ICANN Board decisions (including with respect to the ICANN Board’s oversight of the IANA Functions) by reviewing and approving:  (i) ICANN Board decisions with respect to recommendations resulting from an IANA Function Review (“IFR”) or Special IFR and (ii) the ICANN Budget;”  Because the CWG Stewardship’s focus is specifically on the IANA budget, would it make sense to change (ii) to something like this: “the ICANN Budget including a separate budge for IANA services”?  It seems to me that this would be consistent with item 2.

•        I like the fact that the letter states the CWG requirements for each area and that a clear conclusion is provided but I think it would also be very helpful if in each of the eight cases, between the CWG requirement paragraph and the conclusion, the CCWG Accountability recommendations that fulfill the requirements were briefly listed.  If this seems like a good idea, here is a formatting idea: Provide a heading for each of the three paragraphs of each of the eight items just like is already done for the conclusions: 1) CWG Stewardship Requirements; 2) Applicable CCWG Accountability Recommendations; 3) Conclusion.

From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com]
Sent: 19 February 2016 21:57
To: Client Committee <cwg-client at icann.org<mailto:cwg-client at icann.org>>
Subject: [client com] Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal

Dear All,

Attached please find a draft of the CWG letter to the CCWG regarding the CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal.

As noted in our prior email, with respect to the CWG dependency for an empowered community there was a request in the prior CWG comment letter for CCWG to consider whether the timelines in the prior CCWG proposal for SO/AC action were sufficiently long.  The revised CCWG proposal has extended some of these timelines.  As noted in our prior email, while this is not strictly an issue of conformity with the CWG proposal as the CWG proposal does not address this type of detail, we wanted to confirm that CWG was satisfied with the response to its prior comment letter.

Please also note that the community power to recall the entire ICANN Board is modified when the Board is to be recalled for implementing GAC advice.  Specifically, if the Empowered Community initiates an IRP challenging the Board’s implementation of GAC advice as being inconsistent with the ICANN Bylaws but does not prevail in the IRP, the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. The Empowered Community may, however, exercise the power to recall the entire Board based on other grounds.  We don’t believe this directly impacts the CWG dependency, but we did want to note it.

Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss.

Kind regards,
Holly and Sharon



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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20160224/608f34e4/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Cwg-client mailing list