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

Fri May 13 05:37:26 UTC 2016

>From the minutes
"*Bylaws section 1.1.(c), issue with language* - Suggested fix GShatan: The
simplest solution would be to remove this clause and end the sentence with
"authority."  That removes the issue of "What does "such regulations" refer
to?"  I support this fix. TR supported. *General agreement to include this
point in **CCWG** comments.*"

Please can you help me understand what part of the above is not
implemented. I like to state that *unless* the legal team confirms
otherwise, we stick to what they have recommended.

Regards

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 13 May 2016 06:01, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b4cb4da7/attachment-0001.html>