<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><div>Dear all —</div><div><br></div><div>Here below are the notes from the Client Committee Call — They are also available on the Wiki at: <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/34xYAw">https://community.icann.org/x/34xYAw</a>. </div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div><top><div><p align="LEFT"><span style="font-size:13pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"><b>Client Committee Meeting #18 - 8 February 2016 @ 17:00 UTC</b></span></p><br align="LEFT"><p align="LEFT"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"><b>Agenda:</b> </span></p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"><li>Update from CWG-Stewardship on Bylaws responses<span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"></span></li><li>Clarify Sidley's role in working on the Bylaws<span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"></span></li><li>Update on budgeting and fee estimates<span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"></span></li><li>Sidley's role in certification of CCWG dependencies<br align="LEFT"></li></span></div></top></div></span><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div><top><div><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"><li><p align="LEFT"><br></p><p align="LEFT"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"><b>Attendees:</b> Sharon Flanagan; Holly Gregory; Lise Fuhr; Maarten Simon; Jonathan Robinson; Greg Shatan</span></p><br align="LEFT"><p align="LEFT"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"><b>Bylaws work: </b></span></p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"></span></li><li>CWG has been working to respond/address the "Notes to CWG" that Sidley raised in its initial Bylaws matrix. The CWG is almost done with this work. <span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"></span></li><li>CWG has requested/envisioned a shorter version of the Bylaws (with references to external documents), but still would answer the questions as needed<span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"></span></li><li>Sidley prefers to do the shortening at a later date. In terms of costs, it would be more efficient for Sidley to insert the responses rather than shorten at the outset.<span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"></span></li><li>Greg suggests that Sidley indicate (with brackets or otherwise) which parts could be removed later (in a shorter Bylaws version)<span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"></span></li><li>Holly disagrees with the purpose of this suggestion: need to capture what CWG wants first, and need for completeness. Greg's suggestion may add cost. <span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"></span></li><li>On CSC Charter example: this is a document that the CWG has discussed moving out of the Bylaws, but Sharon notes that there needs to be a decision about how to modify this Charter, and that decision may be in the Bylaws. <br align="LEFT"><p align="LEFT"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#0000FF;font-family: Arial"><b>Action</b> (Client Committee): Client Committee to share the CWG's responses once more work is completed on the CWG side. Sidley will review, but not implement at this stage. This will help the CWG provide more information for certain responses if needed. </span></p><br align="LEFT"><p align="LEFT"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"><b>Costs update: </b></span></p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"></span></li><li>Context: There has been a significant over-run of costs, and the Board is concerned. With this information, ICANN has offered to draft the first version of the Bylaws for Sidley to review. Possible arguments from ICANN include knowledge of ICANN Bylaws and thus, lower costs. <span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"></span></li><li>Sidley is aware of the sensitivity around costs. Sidley has drafted a significant portion of the Bylaws to date, and Holly now wonders if this work is moot. Holly does not think a cap in costs is possible at this stage. <span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"></span></li><li>The bulk of the work on the Bylaws is done. It's fine tuning at this stage<br align="LEFT"><p align="LEFT"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"><b>Next Steps on Bylaws (including consideration of costs)</b>: </span></p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"></span></li><li>CWG continues work on responses<span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"></span></li><li>CWG shares resposes with Sidley for review<span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"></span></li><li>Sidley embeds the responses into the Bylaws document<span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"></span></li><li>Client Committee reviews the Bylaws document<span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"></span></li><li>ICANN is provided with an opportunity to review/comment on the CWG-Sidley Bylaws document<span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"></span></li><li>ICANN assists with the organization/structure of the Bylaws in their final form, including assisting with moving parts of the Sidley detail into external reference documents (annexes, etc). <br><p align="LEFT"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"><b>Sidley's role in certification of CCWG dependencies: </b></span></p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"></span></li><li>Sidley has been involved on certification in both of the previous drafts<span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"></span></li><li>On the latest IRP draft, Sharon cannot speak to whether the requirements have been met, since she has not been involved in the discussion and compromises. This may be a concern for future involvement. Need to figure out a tracking solution. <span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"></span></li><li>CWG will be asked to certify and sign-off on the final draft<span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family: Arial"></span></li><li>Final review will be too late if there are substantive issues to address. <br align="LEFT"><p align="LEFT"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#0000FF;font-family: Arial"><b>Action:</b> Confirm with CWG that Sidley would conduct a review of the requirements in the final drafting stages, before sign-off by the CWG. Sharon could conduct a review and come back to CWG on next call (18 February) for discussion if needed. Depending on timing, online discussion could be a compromise. </span></p><br></li></span></div></top></div></span></body></html>