[CCWG-ACCT] [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix

[Matthew Shears]

+1

And I don't think that community approval was what we agreed or was 
intended.

On 8/12/2015 1:20 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> This is a very good catch.  Requiring community approval of the budget 
> would seriously  and I think needlessly delay the budget process.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org 
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 12, 2015 8:14 AM
> *To:* Julie Hammer
> *Cc:* At-Large Staff; cwg-stewardship at icann.org; Accountability Cross 
> Community
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix
>
> Julie,
>
> I think you're right. As this was passed on to the whole CWG and CCWG 
> without any prior review by any subcommittees, it should be considered 
> subject to review and comment.
>
> Greg Shatan
>
> On Wednesday, August 12, 2015, Julie Hammer <julie.hammer at bigpond.com 
> <mailto:julie.hammer at bigpond.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Leon,
>
> Many thanks for sharing this matrix. One thing that struck me when 
> having a quick look through it was that Sidley have listed at Item 2 
> (d) the following as Subject Matter for a new Fundamental Bylaw:
>
> "Requirement that the ICANN community approve or veto the IANA Budget 
> after it has been approved by the ICANN Board but before it has come 
> into effect."
>
> In my understanding, the proposed power was to consider and reject (or 
> veto) the IANA Budget, but there should be no requirement for the 
> ICANN Community to come together and actually approve the IANA budget. 
> I had not thought that the Community Mechanism was intended to be used 
> for such a purpose (ie approving strategic plans, operating plans or 
> budgets).
>
> I believe the relevant paragraph from the CCWG 2nd draft report is 
> para 381 on page 58:
>
> 379.381 Accordingly, this new power would give the community the 
> ability to consider strategic and operating plans and budgets (both 
> ICANN general and, separately, with respect to the budget for the IANA 
> Functions) after they are approved by the Board (but before they come 
> into effect) and reject them. The rejection could be of the proposed 
> ICANN Budget or the IANA Budget, or of a proposed ICANN-wide strategic 
> or operating plan. The petition would state which Budget or plan was 
> being subject to veto. A separate petition is required for each Budget 
> or plan being challenged.
>
> Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but I don’t think the word 
> ‘approve’ should appear in 2 (d) in the Sidley matrix.
>
> Cheers,  Julie
>
> On 12 Aug 2015, at 1:56 am, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía 
> <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx 
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','leonfelipe at sanchez.mx');>> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am forwarding this matrix that the CWG is working on as it is of the 
> interest of this group as well and to help us continue shaping our 
> work forward.
>
> The matrix is intended to help identify those bylaws that, from the 
> scope of the CWG, would need to be considered fundamental. This, of 
> course, is independent from the work we need to do but provides an 
> example on what we can begin crafting ourselves.
>
> If you want to keep being in the matrix, swallow the blue pill. If you 
> want to work on shaping the matrix, swallow the red pill. (geek joke)
>
> Best regards,
>
> León
>
>
>
> Inicio del mensaje reenviado:
>
> *De: *"Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan at sidley.com 
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sflanagan at sidley.com');>>
>
> *Asunto: [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix*
>
> *Fecha: *11 de agosto de 2015 9:43:05 GMT-5
>
> *Para: *Client Committee <cwg-client at icann.org 
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client at icann.org');>>
>
> Dear All,
>
> Attached is a draft matrix summarizing the proposed ICANN bylaw 
> changes that relate to CWG’s final proposal.
>
> Could you please forward to the CWG?
>
> Thanks
>
> *SHARON**FLANAGAN*
> Partner
>
> *Sidley Austin LLP
> *555 California Street
> Suite 2000
> San Francisco, CA 94104
> +1.415.772.1271
> sflanagan at sidley.com 
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sflanagan at sidley.com');>
> www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com/>
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
> 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.
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
>
> <209588099_1.pdf>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Cwg-client mailing list
>     Cwg-client at icann.org
>     <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Cwg-client at icann.org');>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org 
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org');>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-- 
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150812/eaaafc79/attachment.html>