<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I might be missing something, but I never thought that the Annex C text ("Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship for Names Functions") was supposed to be made a part of the PTI Bylaws, or any other governance document. That also does not appear to be what Sidley is proposing either. Rather Annex C is supposed to be a benchmark or checklist for our work, including the implementation of our work. That is how Sidley is using Annex C, as far as I can tell. Since Annex C was finalized and agreed by the CWG, it would seem to be an appropriate use of the document, and that any deviation from the agreed concepts of Annex C would require significant deliberation by the CWG.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Am i missing something?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Paul M Kane <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Paul.Kane@icb.co.uk" target="_blank">Paul.Kane@icb.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Apologies. I may not make the call today, my UK Parliament Commissioner<br>
role is super hectic at the moment.<br>
<br>
Regards too all<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Paul<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On 14/07/16 11:19, Paul M Kane - CWG wrote:<br>
> Thanks Jonathan but I have major problems with the new PTI Bylaws text<br>
><br>
> PTI is a service provider to the ccTLD Registry. The new text of Annex C is now<br>
> empowering PTI to interpret local laws for cTLDs and risks destabalising<br>
> existing registrants of current ccTLD Registries.<br>
><br>
> The new language proposed for Annex C are not acceptable IMHO they risk the<br>
> stable operation of ccTLD Registries and their ability to robustly serve their<br>
> customers.<br>
><br>
> This is a major change from the CWG proposal<br>
><br>
> Best<br>
><br>
> Paul<br>
><br>
><br>
> Quoting Jonathan Robinson <<a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info">jrobinson@afilias.info</a>>:<br>
><br>
>> All<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Please see below for Sidley’s communication with the CWG Client Committee<br>
>> on the PTI Bylaws.<br>
>><br>
>> Apologies on behalf of the Client Committee that these were not shared with<br>
>> the CWG more promptly.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> It seems to me that there are two key issues:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> 1. We need to understand the landscape of open issues – we will take<br>
>> input from Sidley in the CWG meeting today on these<br>
>><br>
>> 2. We need assistance from Sidley in converting the summary / map of<br>
>> those issues into structured public comment on the PTI Bylaws.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Thank-you,<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Jonathan<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:<a href="mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com">sflanagan@sidley.com</a>]<br>
>> Sent: 11 July 2016 05:29<br>
>> To: Client Committee <<a href="mailto:cwg-client@icann.org">cwg-client@icann.org</a>><br>
>> Subject: [client com] PTI Bylaws<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Dear All,<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Update on PTI Bylaws:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> We have been working with ICANN legal on revisions to the PTI bylaws based on<br>
>> the input we have received from CWG. We had a call with ICANN legal on<br>
>> Friday afternoon and we circulated a revised draft of the PTI bylaws to ICANN<br>
>> legal on Saturday. On Sunday, ICANN legal circulated a further revised draft<br>
>> (marked to show changes from the Sidley draft), which is attached.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> We understand that ICANN legal plans to post the draft PTI bylaws for comment<br>
>> early this week notwithstanding the fact that there are open issues in the<br>
>> draft based on the CWG input we have received to date. ICANN legal is<br>
>> suggesting that CWG can continue to raise its comments through the public<br>
>> comment period.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Governance Chart:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ICANN legal has also circulated a chart of certain governance provisions<br>
>> included in the PTI bylaws that are not directly addressed in the CWG<br>
>> proposal. We have annotated that chart with a column with our comments on<br>
>> those points. While the details of the PTI bylaws were not specified in the<br>
>> CWG proposal, we believe the approach being taken by CWG in the PTI bylaws on<br>
>> these governance matters is consistent with the intent of the CWG proposal.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Annex C:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> In addition, we previously circulated a chart prepared by ICANN legal on<br>
>> their concerns with the incorporation of the Annex C provisions of the CWG<br>
>> proposal into the PTI bylaws. We have reattached that chart for your<br>
>> reference. The draft PTI bylaws circulated by ICANN legal do not include the<br>
>> Annex C language; instead the draft includes two paragraphs that ICANN legal<br>
>> included to address certain principles from Annex C.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Next steps:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Please let us know if you would like to discuss any of these items or if you<br>
>> would like us to summarize/map out the open issues. We can also be available<br>
>> to assist in the preparation of a comment letter from CWG assuming that ICANN<br>
>> posts this version of the PTI bylaws where open issues remain.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Kind regards,<br>
>><br>
>> Sharon<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> SHARON R. FLANAGAN<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP<br>
>> 555 California Street<br>
>> Suite 2000<br>
>> San Francisco, CA 94104<br>
>> <a href="tel:%2B1%20415%20772%201271" value="+14157721271">+1 415 772 1271</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com">sflanagan@sidley.com</a>> <a href="mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com">sflanagan@sidley.com</a><br>
>> <<a href="http://www.sidley.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.sidley.com</a>> <a href="http://www.sidley.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.sidley.com</a><br>
>><br>
>> <<a href="http://www2.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SIDLEY_150-AUTOSIG.png" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www2.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SIDLEY_150-AUTOSIG.png</a>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
> ****************************************************************************************************<br>
>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is<br>
>> privileged or confidential.<br>
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any<br>
>> attachments and notify us<br>
>> immediately.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
> ****************************************************************************************************<br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>