<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=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@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:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1286543934;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-466427478 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></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-GB" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Thanks for this helpful summary, Grace. I’m sorry to have missed the call and I hope that my responses to your three questions does not stamp too heavily over ground
covered in Thursday’s discussion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">For issue 1, I would align with Donna. It would seem to me to be appropriate to use existing mechanisms for decisions on the CSC charter.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">On issue 2: it’s amazing how often you can read texts and miss inconsistencies! I have a recollection from the discussions (now a very long time ago – this was something
discussed for the first draft, wasn’t it?) that we were looking for a degree of flexibility, without allowing slippage. I liked this concept and wonder whether we could retain it with wording like, “will commence not later than two years after the Transition”?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">One reason I would favour this sort of wording is that there might be reasons – a recognition that we got something wrong, concerns over performance raised by the CSC,
for example – when we would want to carry out a review earlier. However, if things are bedding in nicely, introducing a new instability – with the pressures of a review – too quickly seems to be disruptive without necessarily bringing any obvious benefits.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">On issue 3, I feel a bit ambivalent – I can see benefits for each approach depending on the circumstances. The Empowered Community process probably would be most relevant
in the case where something was going seriously wrong. There could be other reasons for promoting a Special IFR: a need to amend service levels or introduce architectural changes, for example.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Would the best approach be to leave a degree of flexibility? We have both mechanisms, both can be triggered when needed. So why not allow the community proposal to
use the empowered community escalation mechanisms, should that be appropriate, but also allow the RySG and/or ccNSO to launch a consultation process leading to a review?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Hope this helps<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Martin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"> cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Grace Abuhamad<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 25 February 2016 17:42<br>
<b>To:</b> cwg-stewardship@icann.org<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nathalie Vergnolle <nathalie.vergnolle@icann.org>; Akram Atallah <akram.atallah@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CWG-Stewardship] Input Needed: Bylaws Matrix Responses and Three Issues<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Dear CWG-Stewardship and ICANN Implementation Team, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Please see attached the latest version of the responses to the Sidley Bylaws Matrix as well as a list of three currently unresolved issues for CWG-Stewardship input (also copied below for your
convenience). The action assigned on the CWG-Stewardship call today was to share these documents with the group, and simultaneously with the ICANN implementation team for any input they may have. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">On the CWG-Stewardship call today, we outlined the three issues and had an initial, but non-conclusive, discussion about them. On the thresholds issue, Donna Austin suggests we go with current
practices, i.e. simple majority, since Charter amendments will go a public comment process prior to approval by the ccNSO and GNSO. Paul Kane agrees. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Looking forward to your input, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Grace<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">A recap of the three issues presented on call (also in document attached): <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">There are three issues for the CWG-Stewardship to address:
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Issue #1: Thresholds</span></b><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">For the CSC Charter, the CCNSO and GNSO Councils must approve amendments. The DT leads noted that the intention is that the respective Councils (ccNSO and GNSO) would vote to ratify
any proposed charter amendment/s and the threshold would be in accordance with their respective methods of operation. However, the current responses further suggest that, “supermajority of both Councils would seem appropriate if this can be accommodated.”
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Staff would like to note that supermajority may not be consistent with current practice in the GNSO and CCNSO Councils. In the case of the GNSO, the default voting threshold is simple
majority of each house. Should a supermajority vote be deemed appropriate for this purpose, the relevant section in the ICANN bylaws that details voting thresholds that differ from simple majority, would need to be updated.
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Does the CWG want to define a higher threshold for the CCNSO and GNSO councils or proceed with existing operating procedures within the Councils?</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Issue #2: Timing of the first IANA Function Review</span></b><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Paragraph (194) of the CWG Final Proposal provides that the IFR “will not commence” until two years after this date, but Paragraph (301) provides that the initial IFR must be completed
by this 2-year anniversary</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Current response: Paragraph 301 being focused on the IFR while Paragraph 194 being a timetable makes Paragraph 301 the determining one. However, Paragraphs 267/268 seem to confirm
the ambiguity. Separately, Paragraph 194 does allow, however for a Special IFR sooner than 2 years if needed.
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">CWG needs to choose:
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">The first IFR will not commence until two years after the Transition
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">The first IFR will be completed by the 2-year anniversary of the Transition</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Issue #3: Use of the Empowered Community mechanisms for the Special IFR</span></b><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">The CWG needs to consider specifying a forum and process for the Special IFR. Paragraphs (125) and (303) of the CWG Final Proposal provide that consideration of whether to trigger
a Special IFR “may” include a public comment period but is silent on who determines whether there should be a public comment period.
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">If the CWG-Stewardship adopts the Empowered Community mechanism of the CCWG-Accountability, then the process for escalation includes a discussion forum. Would that be sufficient?
If not, the CWG-Stewardship could mandate a standard ICANN public comment period before triggering a Special IFR.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>