[CCWG-ACCT] [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
Wed Aug 19 12:31:49 UTC 2015
Dear Athina,
Thank you for flagging this issues. We will reach out to CWG Co-Chairs and coordinate with them to propose proper adjustments.
Best regards,
León
> El 19/08/2015, a las 4:42, Athina Fragkouli <athina.fragkouli at ripe.net> escribió:
>
> Dear Leon, all,
>
> Thank you for sharing the matrix with us.
>
> I understand that this addresses merely CWG issues and that it is only a
> description of what the provisions will contain. However, as it also
> touches upon CCWG accountability topics, we would like to flag a couple
> of issues so that they are properly addressed in the actual bylaws text.
>
> In particular:
>
> - Section 7 - IANA Function Review.
> It should be clear that this section refers to the IANA naming function
> only.
>
> - Section 9 - Appeal Mechanism
> As there is an exception for the ccTLDs, there should also be
> such an exception for the numbers related disputes.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Athina
> on behalf of the ASO reps
>
>
> On 18/08/15 21:19, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
>> 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
>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto:sabine.meyer at bmwi.bund.de <mailto:sabine.meyer at bmwi.bund.de>>____
>>>
>>> Internet: http://www.bmwi.de <http://www.bmwi.de/> <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>>
>>> [mailto: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>
>>> <mailto: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>>
>>> [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>
>>> <mailto: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> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com>
>>> www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com/> <http://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____
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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____>
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150819/f3b92190/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list