[CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7

Tue Apr 12 14:07:46 UTC 2016

On a very very light note, people make mistake in spelling my name which
usually has no serious implication(at least non that I know of), but there
are some names that missing just a character in it could make a different
meaning with all its implications. I encourage us to please take some time
in spelling our names correctly ;-)

Regards
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 12 Apr 2016 14:57, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
wrote:

> Dear Kavouss,
>
> I might be mistaken but my reading of Mr. Shatan’s comments is that he
> actually supports what you’ve been saying. In any case I believe your
> disagreement could be with the comments made by Mr. Schaeffer.
>
> Also, let’s not allow passion to heat the discussion and avoid qualifying
> others contributions as “wrong” or otherwise.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> León
>
> El 12/04/2016, a las 8:49 a.m., Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> escribió:
>
> Dear Mr Satan
> 'Whenever ,there is no apple, the issue you have raised "Indeed, this has
> nothing to do with the "GAC Carve out," which is intended to deal with "two
> bites at the apple" issues only"is senseless.  For Approval of Bylaws GAC
> like other constituency has the power to exercise its rights .There is no
> first bit that prohibit GAC to participate in exercising that power( the
> first and the last bit)
> You totally misunderstood the process because of your antigac sentiment
> which blut as soon as any thing reklating to GAC comes to the discussion.
> Your supported in part of the private scooter have the same
> wrong impression.
> Read the Carve-out in recs. 1 and 2 .Approval of ICANN CHANGES TO THE
> FUNDAMENTAL bylaws was not based on any advice or recommendation from any
> SO/AC.
> Because you are mo concentrated on one single thought in the world and
> ignoring other wide aspects of the legal terms you make such a wrong
> interpretations
>
> .
>
>
>
> 2016-04-12 15:37 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:
>
>> I agree with Jordan and Jorge.  We need to be clear that we are neither
>> expanding nor restricting the "GAC Carveout" beyond that in the Proposal.
>> Indeed, this has nothing to do with the "GAC Carveout," which is intended
>> to deal with "two bites at the apple" issues only.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> <image001.jpg>
>>
>>
>> *Gregory S. Shatan | Partner*McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
>>
>> 245 Park Avenue, 27th Floor | New York, New York 10167
>> T: 212-609-6873
>> F: 212-416-7613
>> gshatan @mccarter.com | www.mccarter.com
>>
>> BOSTON | HARTFORD | STAMFORD | NEW YORK | NEWARK
>> EAST BRUNSWICK | PHILADELPHIA  | WILMINGTON | WASHINGTON, DC
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Schaefer, Brett <
>> Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Alan,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The IETF has never expressed any interest in participating in the EC nor
>>> was it discussed to any extent that I can recall. That is not the case with
>>> the GAC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Brett
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> Brett Schaefer
>>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
>>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
>>> Security and Foreign Policy
>>> The Heritage Foundation
>>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
>>> Washington, DC 20002
>>> 202-608-6097
>>> heritage.org
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:25 AM
>>> *To:* Schaefer, Brett; Mathieu Weill; Accountability Cross Community
>>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification
>>> of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The CCWG was NOT silent. It said that the EC had the power and the GAC
>>> is defined as part of the EC.
>>>
>>> That notwithstanding, if the removal power were granted solely to those
>>> who vote for the selection of NomCom appointees, then the IETF would have
>>> to be part of the decisional group that removes NomCom appointed directors.
>>> Something that was never even raised.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> At 12/04/2016 08:06 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Co-chairs,
>>>
>>> I am opposed to this decision on Q29 for several reasons:
>>>
>>>
>>>    1. The GAC does not vote for NOMCOM directors, and should not have a
>>>    vote in their removal.
>>>    2. It is inconsistent with how the CCWG draft treats individual
>>>    SO/ACs with respect to their appointed directors. The SO/ACs voting on
>>>    NOMCOM directors should have similar exclusive authority over their
>>>    removal.
>>>    3. The CCWG proposal is silent on this matter, we should not be
>>>    inserting new powers for the GAC into the bylaws when they are not
>>>    explicitly included in the CCWG draft.
>>>
>>>
>>> I am also opposed procedurally.
>>>
>>> On the Board removal of directors discussion, we were told that even
>>> though legally the EC had to approve the removals, that the CCWG draft was
>>> silent of this, so we could not create a new power for the EC that would
>>> infringe on Board powers in the current bylaws. Therefor the approval had
>>> to be a rubber stamp.
>>>
>>> Here, the CCWG proposal is silent on whether the GAC should have a vote
>>> on removing NOMCOM directors. The current bylaws specifically do not give
>>> the GAC any vote on the approval or removal of NOMCOM directors. But we are
>>> told that we must grant them such authority even though there is no legal
>>> requirement for it as we know from the power of individual SO/AC to remove
>>> their appointed directors.
>>>
>>> How are these two interpretations consistent? Either we add new powers
>>> for the EC on Board decisions to remove directors or we do not add new
>>> powers for the GAC on removing NOMCOM directors.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Brett
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Brett Schaefer
>>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
>>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
>>> Security and Foreign Policy
>>> The Heritage Foundation
>>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
>>> Washington, DC 20002
>>> 202-608-6097
>>> heritage.org
>>>
>>> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
>>> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>>> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mathieu
>>> Weill
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:54 AM
>>> *To:* Accountability Cross Community
>>> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of
>>> Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
>>>
>>> Forwarding also our lawyerâ€™s clarification on Q29 (please note that
>>> the clarification on Q7 is redundant with the previous email).
>>>
>>> Best
>>> Mathieu
>>>
>>> *De :* bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org [
>>> mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org <bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org>] *De
>>> la part de* Rosemary E. Fei via bylaws-coord
>>> *EnvoyÃ© :* lundi 11 avril 2016 21:43
>>> *Ã€ :* bylaws-coord at icann.org
>>> *Cc :* ICANN-Adler; Daniel Halloran (daniel.halloran at icann.org );
>>> Sidley ICANN CCWG ( sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com); Amy Stathos (
>>> amy.stathos at icann.org)
>>> *Objet :* [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29;
>>> further clarification request for Question 7
>>>
>>> Dear Bylaws Coordination group:
>>>
>>> Please see attached.  All three counsels have signed off on these
>>> questions from counsel.  Pdf versions to follow.
>>>
>>> Rosemary and Holly
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160412/0fee4d2a/attachment-0001.html>