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

Wed May 4 20:42:50 UTC 2016

I personally would not mind removing the word "significant" but I expect
that the significant referred to there would be applied to any issue that
the EC uses as basis for her petition[1].

Cheers!
1. Quoted from the report "..or other matters of concern to the
community..."
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

How would the words "significant issues" be interpreted and by whom?  (From
this piece of text below "Notice is based on one or more significant issues
that were specifically raised in the applicable public comment period(s)"

Thanks.

On 5/4/2016 4:46 PM, Mathieu Weill 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
<kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>]
*> Envoyé :* mercredi 4 mai 2016 15:25
*> À :* Mathieu Weill
*> Cc :* <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
<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 <%2B1%20212%20839%205853>
>> holly.gregory at sidley.com <holly.gregory 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.
>>
>>
****************************************************************************************************

>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
<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
<Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>

-- 

Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987

_______________________________________________
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/20160504/2a26eb3e/attachment.html>