[CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] PTI Bylaws

Thu Jul 14 12:22:44 UTC 2016

Hi Paul,

I assume you refer to the Annex C text as was proposed by Sidley and not
to the text of the bylaws as they are published by ICANN for public
comment. I also have a number of second thoughts about the Annex C
proposed text as it may not always be - or at least open for
interpretation as being not in line - with the current status quo with
regard to ccTLD-IANA (& ICANN) relations. I therefore agree with ICANN’s
suggestion not to use any of this text in the bylaws (we could still apart
from that discuss if the purpose (art. 3 bylaws) is sufficient now) and to
copy as literally as possible the relevant wording from the NTIA contract
in the new ICANN - PTI contract.

Best,

Maarten

On 14/07/16 12:19, "cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Paul M
Kane - CWG" <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk> wrote:

>Thanks Jonathan but I have major problems with the new PTI Bylaws text
>
>PTI is a service provider to the ccTLD Registry.  The new text of Annex C
>is now
>empowering PTI to interpret local laws for cTLDs and risks destabalising
>existing registrants of current ccTLD Registries.
>
>The new language proposed for Annex C are not acceptable IMHO they risk
>the
>stable operation of ccTLD Registries and their ability to robustly serve
>their
>customers.
>
>This is a major change from the CWG proposal
>
>Best
>
>Paul
>
>
>Quoting Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>:
>
>> All
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Please see below for Sidleyâ€™s communication with the CWG Client
>>Committee
>> on the PTI Bylaws.
>> 
>> Apologies on behalf of the Client Committee that these were not shared
>>with
>> the CWG more promptly.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> It seems to me that there are two key issues:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 1.      We need to understand the landscape of open issues â€“ we will
>>take
>> input from Sidley in the CWG meeting today on these
>> 
>> 2.      We need assistance from Sidley in converting the summary / map
>>of
>> those issues into structured public comment on the PTI Bylaws.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thank-you,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Jonathan
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com]
>> Sent: 11 July 2016 05:29
>> To: Client Committee <cwg-client at icann.org>
>> Subject: [client com] PTI Bylaws
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Update on PTI Bylaws:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> We have been working with ICANN legal on revisions to the PTI bylaws
>>based on
>> the input we have received from CWG.  We had a call with ICANN legal on
>> Friday afternoon and we circulated a revised draft of the PTI bylaws to
>>ICANN
>> legal on Saturday.  On Sunday, ICANN legal circulated a further revised
>>draft
>> (marked to show changes from the Sidley draft), which is attached.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> We understand that ICANN legal plans to post the draft PTI bylaws for
>>comment
>> early this week notwithstanding the fact that there are open issues in
>>the
>> draft based on the CWG input we have received to date.  ICANN legal is
>> suggesting that CWG can continue to raise its comments through the
>>public
>> comment period.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Governance Chart:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> ICANN legal has also circulated a chart of certain governance provisions
>> included in the PTI bylaws that are not directly addressed in the CWG
>> proposal.  We have annotated that chart with a column with our comments
>>on
>> those points.  While the details of the PTI bylaws were not specified
>>in the
>> CWG proposal, we believe the approach being taken by CWG in the PTI
>>bylaws on
>> these governance matters is consistent with the intent of the CWG
>>proposal.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Annex C:  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> In addition, we previously circulated a chart prepared by ICANN legal on
>> their concerns with the incorporation of the Annex C provisions of the
>>CWG
>> proposal into the PTI bylaws.  We have reattached that chart for your
>> reference.  The draft PTI bylaws circulated by ICANN legal do not
>>include the
>> Annex C language; instead the draft includes two paragraphs that ICANN
>>legal
>> included to address certain principles from Annex C.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Next steps:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Please let us know if you would like to discuss any of these items or
>>if you
>> would like us to summarize/map out the open issues.  We can also be
>>available
>> to assist in the preparation of a comment letter from CWG assuming that
>>ICANN
>> posts this version of the PTI bylaws where open issues remain.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Sharon
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> SHARON R. FLANAGAN
>> 
>> 
>> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
>> 555 California Street
>> Suite 2000
>> San Francisco, CA 94104
>> +1 415 772 1271
>>  <mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com> sflanagan at sidley.com
>>  <http://www.sidley.com> www.sidley.com
>> 
>>   
>><http://www2.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SIDLEY_150-AUTOSIG.png>
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>
>**************************************************************************
>**************************
>> 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
>> immediately.
>> 
>>
>**************************************************************************
>**************************
>> 
>> 
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>