[CCWG-ACCT] TR: Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A)

Wed May 4 14:53:36 UTC 2016

Hi Mathieu,

Thanks for letting us know this is Infact in the spirit of the report. On
that note, I will support leaving things as proposed and hope that the
scenario painted by Malcolm never happens and if it does, it can only
happen once, as other measures like board spilling could kick in. ;-)

Cheers!
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 4 May 2016 3:47 p.m., "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
> Paragraph 14 of Annex 4 of our supplemental report states :
>
>
>
> A community decision to reject a budget or a plan after it has been
> approved by the ICANN
>
> Board will be based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission
> and role set out in
>
> ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of
> ICANN stakeholders;
>
> financial stability, or other matters of concern to the community. *The
> veto could only concern*
>
> *issues that had been raised in the public consultations conducted before
> the Board approved the*
>
> *budget or plan.*
>
> (emphasis added)
>
>
>
> I believe our lawyers have been diligent in ensuring this requirement is
> taken into account.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Mathieu
>
>
>
> *De :* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> *Envoyé :* mercredi 4 mai 2016 15:25
> *À :* Mathieu Weill
> *Cc :* <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section
> 2.2(c)(i)(A)
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> Did we specifically agreed in CCWG the need for a)" rationale"
> And b) indoor the conditions that such rationale is based on "one  or more
> significant issues raised during the public comment"?
>
> May you refresh our mind by citing the corresponding paragraph in CCWG REC.
>
> Moreover, if such issue is not raised during the public comment no action
> could be taken to reject ..,.,
>
> Is this is not intended to reduce , diminish or make it impossible for any
> entity to proceed with a petition in that regard?
>
> May you further clarify the matter
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On 4 May 2016, at 08:43, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
> As a follow up from the call yesterday, please find below a note from our
> lawyers regarding one of the points we discussed. This is related to the
> requirement to provide rationale when initiating a community power
> escalation process.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Mathieu
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Grapsas, Rebecca
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 03, 2016 05:24:00 PM
> *To:* Gregory, Holly
> *Subject:* Rationale Requirement in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A)
>
> Dear Co-Chairs,
>
> On today’s CCWG call, a concern was raised regarding the requirement to
> provide “specific rationales” in Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) (pasted
> below).   As discussed below, this provision is consistent with the CCWG
> Proposal.
>
> As I noted in the chat during today’s call, the general requirement for
> the Petitioning Decisional Participant to provide a rationale for the
> rejection petition (i.e., the first part of (A), highlighted in yellow) was
> included to reflect Annex 2, Paragraph 32 (first bullet, first
> sub-bullet)), which provides that “Within 24 hours of a petition being
> approved, the petitioning Decisional Participant will: Circulate a detailed
> rationale for proposing to use the Community Power to all Decisional
> Participants. Any SO or AC may contribute preliminary thoughts or questions
> in writing via a specific publicly archived email list set up for this
> specific issue….”
>
>
>
> The language in (A) highlighted in green was included to reflect Annex 4,
> Paragraphs 12 and 14:
>
> ·        Paragraph 12: “The CCWG-Accountability has determined that a
> separate petition would be required for each budget or strategic/operating
> plan being challenged. A budget or strategic/operating plan could only be
> challenged if there are significant issue(s) brought up in the engagement
> process that were not addressed prior to approval.”
>
> ·        Paragraph 14: “A community decision to reject a budget or a plan
> after it has been approved by the ICANN Board will be based on perceived
> inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s
> Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN
> stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the
> community. The veto could only concern issues that had been raised in the
> public consultations conducted before the Board approved the budget or
> plan.”
>
> Given that a budget or plan can only be rejected based on “perceived
> inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s
> Articles and Bylaws; the global public interest; the needs of ICANN
> stakeholders; financial stability, or other matters of concern to the
> community”, the Bylaw was drafted to limit the ability to escalate
> rejection of a budget or plan to situations where the rationale includes
> one or more of those specified items.
>
>
>
> *Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A):*
>
>
>
> (c) A Decisional Participant that has received a Rejection Action Petition
> shall either accept or reject such Rejection Action Petition; provided that
> a Decisional Participant may only accept such Rejection Action Petition if
> it was received by such Decisional Participant during the Rejection Action
> Petition Period.
>
> (i) If, in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.2(c) of this
> Annex D, a Decisional Participant accepts a Rejection Action Petition
> during the Rejection Action Petition Period, the Decisional Participant
> shall promptly provide to the EC Administration, the other Decisional
> Participants and the Secretary written notice (“Rejection Action Petition
> Notice”) of such acceptance (such Decisional Participant, the “Rejection
> Action Petitioning Decisional Participant”), and ICANN shall promptly post
> such Rejection Action Petition Notice on the Website. The Rejection Action
> Petition Notice shall also include:
>
> (A) the rationale upon which rejection of the Rejection Action is sought. Where
> the Rejection Action Petition Notice relates to an ICANN Budget, an IANA
> Budget, an Operating Plan or a Strategic Plan, the Rejection Action
> Petition Notice shall not be valid and shall not be accepted by the EC
> Administration unless the rationale set forth in the Rejection Action
> Petition Notice is based on one or more significant issues that were
> specifically raised in the applicable public comment period(s) relating to
> perceived inconsistencies with the Mission, purpose and role set forth in
> ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, the global public interest,
> the needs of ICANN’s stakeholders, financial stability, or other matter of
> concern to the community;
>
> Annex D, Section 2.2(c)(i)(A) as included in the April 20 draft of the
> Bylaws is consistent with the CCWG Proposal.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Holly
>
>
>
> *HOLLY* *J. GREGORY*
> Partner and Co-Chair
> Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Group
>
> *Sidley Austin LLP*
> 787 Seventh Avenue
> New York, NY 10019
> +1 212 839 5853
> holly.gregory 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.
>
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160504/0f7d20cf/attachment-0001.html>