[client com] CCWG Proposal

[Lise Fuhr]

Hi Sharon,

 

Thank you for your proposed language. We have sent the draft with changes to the group with a 24 hour deadline.

 

Regarding the bylaws there are no actions for Sidley now. You are still on stand-by until we have sorted out the questions you asked in the bylaws document. We plan to form a small group of the DT leads that are relevant in relation to your questions – Chuck, Donna and Avri. Jonathan and I will send a note to the group about this since we didn’t have time to discuss the two last items – creation of PTI and the bylaws. 

 

When the CWG has discussed the answers created by the small group we will get back to you with the answers in order for you to reduce the bylaws as agreed at our client committee call.

 

Regarding the board comments we have no mandate to instruct Sidley to look at the comments. In any event we are still unclear about the actual impact of the comments on the end product. Furthermore we have reserved further rights to respond to any further changes to the CCWG proposal so we might need assistance at a later stage but this has to be discussed with CWG.

 

If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to contact me or Jonathan.

 

Best,

Lise

 

Fra: cwg-client-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-client-bounces at icann.org] På vegne af Flanagan, Sharon
Sendt: 16. december 2015 06:59
Til: Client Committee
Emne: [client com] CCWG Proposal

 

Dear Client Committee and ICANN Staff,

 

Below is proposed language to replace the current conclusion in the draft comment letter under Item 7, Appeals Mechanism.

 

Also, we noted that the ICANN bylaws was an agenda item on the CWG call today.  Were there any actions for Sidley in that regard or should we continue to stand by?

 

Lastly, would you like us to more formally review the comments from the ICANN board on the CCWG proposal for potential impact on the CWG dependencies?

 

Rider for Comment Letter:

“Conclusion – As we noted in our comment letter to the Second Draft Proposal, the Third Draft Proposal does not explicitly address the CWG-Stewardship requirement that an independent review process be available for claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI.  This requirement could be addressed in a number of ways.  For example, a provision could be added to the ICANN bylaws that would require ICANN to enforce its rights under the ICANN-PTI Contract/Standard of Work (SOW), with a failure by ICANN to address a material breach by PTI under the contract being grounds for an IRP process by the Empowered Community (after engagement and escalation).   Another approach would be to expand and modify, as appropriate, the IRP process currently contemplated by the Third Draft Proposal to cover claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI, with the ICANN bylaws and PTI governance documents expressly confirming that the IRP process is binding on PTI (which provisions would be fundamental bylaws that could not be amended without community approval). Regardless of approach, the CWG-Stewardship requires that this dependency be addressed in the final CCWG-Accountability proposal in order for the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the conditions of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal have been adequately addressed.”

 

Best regards,

Holly and Sharon

SHARON FLANAGAN
+1 415 772 1271
sflanagan at sidley.com
 <http://www.sidley.com> www.sidley.com

 <http://www.sidley.com/> Billede fjernet af afsender. http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

 

 

****************************************************************************************************
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.

****************************************************************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20151216/fe660aa2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD000.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20151216/fe660aa2/WRD000-0001.jpg>