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

Fri Aug 14 05:47:35 UTC 2015

Dear All,
It is  simple ,please replace the word" approve  by "  Reject " .
Tks
Kavouss

2015-08-13 11:27 GMT+02:00 <Sabine.Meyer at bmwi.bund.de>:

> Dear Julie, Martin, Greg, León,
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> I have a further question about the matrix kindly shared by León,
> regarding its section on PTI Governance, specifically Section 1 subsection
> (a) (ii), i.e. “ jurisdiction of incorporation (i.e., to change from
> California to another jurisdiction)“.
>
>
>
> Have the deliberations of the CCWG whether or not a bylaw requirement
> regarding location of headquarters should be a Fundamental Bylaw (para 241
> – 255 of the draft report) been taken into account by the CWG? As I
> understand, the matrix refers to changes in the ICANN bylaws so I was
> wondering whether it is fully consistent with the CCWG proposal in this
> regard.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Sabine Meyer
>
> International Digital and Postal Policy, Internet Governance
>
> Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy
>
> Villemombler Strasse 76, 53123 Bonn
>
> GERMANY
>
> Phone: +49 228 99615-2948
>
> Fax: + 49 228 99615-2964
>
> E-Mail: sabine.meyer at bmwi.bund.de
>
> Internet: http://www.bmwi.de
>
>
>
> *Von:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Martin Boyle
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 12. August 2015 19:09
> *An:* Greg Shatan; Julie Hammer
> *Cc:* At-Large Staff; cwg-stewardship at icann.org; Accountability Cross
> Community
> *Betreff:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix
>
>
>
> Not sure why, but I did not see Julie’s original mail.
>
>
>
> I agree with her point.  There are also other parts of this section of the
> matrix that raise questions for me:
>
>
>
>          i.            For all of “2.  *ICANN Budget and IANA Budget*” I
> think CWG should be consulted where it comes to the IANA budget.
>
>
>
>        ii.            (a)  This is definitely something that needs to be
> considered by the CWG.  I’m not sure about what we mean by “approved
> budget.”  In my mind, PTI prepares its budget in discussion with the OCs so
> there will be a general expectation that the budget is a community-agreed
> budget – if it isn’t, there would be reason for the budget to be
> challenged.  So couldn’t/shouldn’t ICANN challenge the budget if there were
> opposition from the community?  I like the idea of a contract commitment
> (but wouldn’t that undermine a community power in ICANN to veto the IANA
> budget?) subject to there being a condition in the contract for PTI to
> develop its budget in consultation with the OCs (the CSC?), given that
> runaway budgets in the PTI will have a knock-on effect on how much they
> have to pay to ICANN!
>
>
>
>       iii.            I like the contract-condition approach because the
> same conditions would need to be transferred to any new operator.
>
>
>
>      iv.            (b)  Shouldn’t this be a requirement on the PTI?
> They are the ones with the budget and the obligations that go with it.
> This would seem to be a contract condition.
>
>
>
>        v.            (c)  Again a contract condition?
>
>
>
>      vi.            As I noted above, I agree with Julie.  “Approval”
> should be part of PTI’s budget development (especially for things like new
> investment, enhancing service level expectations, new technology
> developments).
>
>
>
> The CSC is an entity associated with the PTI:  Is the framework under 5
> better included in the contract than in a fundamental bylaw?  On the other
> hand, there will be operational issues and decisions that would fall under
> the purview of the ccNSO and GNSO (selection of members, recall of members,
> escalation for example) and these will probably need bylaw changes for the
> ccNSO and GNSO.  would these need to be fundamental bylaws, though?
>
>
>
> Under 6, isn’t this something for the PTI, not ICANN?  I guess it could be
> a condition in the ICANN-PTI contract that the PTI develops a
> problem-resolution service, but I wonder how a bylaw in ICANN would achieve
> this.
>
>
>
> 8.(e) talks about separation of PTI, but isn’t it the IANA functions
> operation that is separated from PTI?  And if that happens, there is no
> reason to do other than wind PTI up as its assets are transferred to the
> new operator.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* 12 August 2015 13:14
> *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>
> 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> 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>
>
> *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>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150814/d16b61c7/attachment.html>