[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - V2.0 of comments on draft Bylaws - 24 hour Final Feedback by CCWG-Accountability

Fri May 13 05:00:54 UTC 2016

Mathieu,

I don't believe you are correct on this point.  I looked back at the both
mark-ups provided by Sidley/Adler and there was no substantive comment on
this point in either draft.  The fix in my email reflects the outcome of
the last CCWG call.  The origin of the Recommendation in the draft is
obscure, and does not come from the CCWG.  Furthermore, the Recommendation
as drafted does not make sense.  The appropriate action to take is to
execute what was agreed on the call, which is what's reflected in my email.

Greg

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
wrote:

> Greg,
>
>
>
> I believe we also received a comment on this from our lawyers, and we felt
> safer to go with our lawyer’s version.
>
>
>
> The difference seems to be in specifically mentioning “governmentally
> authorized regulatory” authority.
>
>
>
> Mathieu
>
>
>
> *De :* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *De la part de* Greg
> Shatan
> *Envoyé :* mercredi 11 mai 2016 21:02
> *À :* Bernard Turcotte
> *Cc :* Accountability Cross Community
> *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - V2.0 of comments on draft
> Bylaws - 24 hour Final Feedback by CCWG-Accountability
>
>
>
> This version fails to take into account my comment of May 9, which I will
> copy and paste here for ease of reference. Simply put, the Recommendation
> in this draft (as in the first draft) is not what we agreed to in the
> meeting.  It also fails to solve the problem.  Please correct the Comment
> as set forth below in blue.  Thanks!
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> There's a problem with the recommendation for Section 1.1(c).
> Specifically, the "Recommendation" is incorrect (based on both the "Issue"
> stated just above it and the call we had last week).  The decision of the
> group was to eliminate the second clause (beginning with "and nothing..."),
> leaving only the first clause "For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not
> hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority."  The proposed
> Recommendation gets this almost exactly backward, deleting the first clause
> and leaving the second.  This needs to be fixed as set forth below.
>
> Currently the section reads as follows:
>
> 1. Draft Bylaws section 1.1 (c)
> 1.1. Text from the Bylaws: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules
> and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or
> the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope
> of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any
> governmentally authorized regulatory authority, and nothing in the
> preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that it does have
> authority to impose such regulations.”
> 1.2. Issue: The last clause of the last sentence: "nothing in the
> preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that it does have
> authority to impose such regulations" Appears to create some ambiguity.
> 1.3. Recommendation: Remove this clause and end the sentence with
> "authority." The text would now read: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e.,
> impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique
> identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the
> express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in the
> preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that ICANN does have such
> authority.”
>
> Instead, the Recommendation should be changed to read as follows:
>
> 1.3. Recommendation: Remove this clause and end the sentence with
> "authority." The text would now read: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e.,
> impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique
> identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the
> express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not
> hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority.”
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Bernard Turcotte <
> turcotte.bernard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Please find attached V2.0 of the CCWG-Accountability comments to be
> submitted to the ICANN public consultation on the New Bylaws.
>
>
>
> Modifications since V1.0 was circulated (There is no red-line comparison
> as too many things have changed. Rather we are providing a high level
> summary of changes here and are providing both versions V1.0 and 2.0 for
> ease of comparison):
>
>
>
>    - V1.0 items 9 and 10 have been removed following consideration of
>    legal counsel advice.
>
>
>    - 9. Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 1.4(b)
>       - 10. Draft Bylaws Annex D Section 2.2 (c) (i) (A)
>
>
>    - V2.0 new item 9 is  - Draft Bylaws Section 1.2(b)(viii) which was in
>    the initial comments but not included in V1.0
>    - V2.0 new items 10 to 14. These are a selection by the leadership
>    from the list of issues submitted by Alan Greenberg this past weekend
>
>
>    - 10. Draft Bylaws Section 7.12 (b)
>       - 11. Draft Bylaws Section 4.6(b)(ii)
>       - 12. Draft Bylaws Section 7.4(d)
>       - 13. Draft Bylaws Section 7.11(a)(i)(B)
>       - 14. Draft Bylaws Annex D, Section 1.4(b)(i-ii)
>
>
>    - V2.0 New - Conclusion - short recap of Introduction
>
> The Final Feedback period is only intended to provide the
> CCWG-Accountability participants the opportunity to confirm there are no
> significant issues or gaps in this version and is not intended as an
> opportunity to raise new issues.
>
>
>
> The Feedback period will begin 20:00UTC today Wednesday May 11th and close
> 20:00UTC Thursday May 12th.
>
>
>
> Please reply to the list using the Subject line of this message to
> facilitate identifying your input (or simply REPLY to this email).
>
>
>
> The objective of the leadership is to finalize these and submit them
> before the weekend.
>
>
>
> Documents attached.
>
>
>
> Bernard Turcotte
>
> ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs - Mathieu Weill,
> Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160513/1f29edb9/attachment.html>