[CCWG-ACCT] [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
Tue Aug 18 19:19:30 UTC 2015
Dear all,
As spotted by some, there are some inaccuracies in the matrix that need to be taken care of.
I will make sure to pass your comments to the CWG Co-Chairs so that they can review them with counsel and make the corresponding corrections to the document.
Best regards,
León
> El 14/08/2015, a las 0:47, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> escribió:
>
> 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 <mailto: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 <tel:%2B49%20228%2099615-2948>
> Fax: + 49 228 99615-2964 <tel:%2B%2049%20228%2099615-2964>
> E-Mail: sabine.meyer at bmwi.bund.de <mailto:sabine.meyer at bmwi.bund.de>
> Internet: http://www.bmwi.de <http://www.bmwi.de/>
>
>
> Von: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto: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 <mailto: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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <>> 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 <tel:%2B1.415.772.1271>
> 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 <>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <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/20150818/ea9926b1/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list