[CWG-Stewardship] Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions

Mon Dec 21 19:46:54 UTC 2015

Thanks Grace.

Chuck

From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org] 
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 2:37 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions 

Chuck, I am happy to do whatever is easiest for you. I can help with
managing/merging documents, as long as there is a redline version for me to
work from. Since a few questions may need some discussion or collaboration
among DT leads, it may be helpful to bounce a few ideas off-list and then
provide a proposed response. We can also help arrange a call in the new year
if that is more efficient. 

From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
Date: Monday, December 21, 2015 at 1:26 PM
To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>, "Austin, Donna"
<Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>, Avri Doria <doriavr at gmail.com>
Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: RE: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions 

Grace - Do you want us to insert our proposed input into the framework
directly or submit it separately?

Donna - I note that the two items for DT-M that need responses also involve
CT-CSC, so I assume that you and I should collaborate on those.  I know you
are on vacation the rest of this month; should I assume that any
collaboration we do will need to happen in January?

Chuck

From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org] 
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 1:54 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions 

Dear Donna, Chuck, and Avri

As the leads of DT-C (CSC), DT-M (Escalation), and DT-N (Reviews), the
Chairs has asked that you prepare responses to the Sidley Draft Bylaws'
"Notes to CWG" since these notes affected mainly the work developed by your
design teams. Some questions are easier to answer than others: some
questions may require input from the CWG-Stewardship (if, for example, the
response could be considered policy), others may have dependencies on the
CCWG-Accountability work. 

I have updated the draft framework since it's presentation on 2 December to
fix page number references and remove the repeated "note to CWG" at the
beginning of each row. In reviewing this document, there are some items
where ICANN may be able to provide information or assist with the response
formulation. If you have specific questions for ICANN staff, please let us
know. 

As Lise put in her note below, the primary issue for the 12 January call
will be the DT-IPR work, but my assumption is that an update on the response
work may be of interest on that call as well. Please let us (staff support)
know if there is anything that you need to help you in completing this work.

Best, 

Grace 

From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Lise Fuhr
<lise.fuhr at difo.dk>
Date: Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:05 AM
To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the last item from the CWG call
15.12.2015

Dear CWG,

At our call on Tuesday we didn't have time to discuss two issues:

Under 3. Implementation - creation of PTI, and 4. Bylaws. Below is a short
description of both issues.

3. Implementation - sub bullet "Creation of PTI"

At our last CWG call (December 3rd) we considered Sidley's role in relation
to the creation of PTI and the associated legal work (Co formation, bylaws,
articles etc). 

The client committee discussed this together with Sidley on our call
December 10th and, in combination with the direction received in the CWG
call, we believe the following is an effective approach:

.        ICANN to hold the pen and undertake the first pass on the legal
work (as part of its role in implementation).

.        But . ICANN to approach the legal work on the implementation of PTI
in stages. 

.        In particular, it is important to seek agreement with CWG / Sidley
on the key principles before starting the detail drafting phase. 

.        Thereafter, it will be important for CWG / Sidley to review and
agree the draft and final forms of the key legal documents

.        The CWG will need to see regular updates from ICANN as part of this
process in order to ensure timely implementation.

Action Staff is to advise ICANN to approach the implementation of PTI in
stages. In particular, to seek agreement with CWG on the principles before
starting the drafting phase.

4. ICANN Bylaws (relating to PTI):

The client committee had a call on Thursday December 10th . We discussed
with Sidley the request to simplify their draft of the bylaws. 

Sidley suggested at the call, that instead of simplifying Bylaws at the
outset, the CWG could work on the questions previously posed by Sidley and
then Sidley could most effectively recommend what needs to be in the Bylaws
and what can be implemented as supplements e.g. as 'policies' to be included
elsewhere.

The co-chairs therefore propose to form a small group to manage dealing with
the questions in the first instance in order to inform Sidley's
restructuring of their draft. The group to be composed of the leads of DTs
that most closely associated with the questions asked by Sidley. We suggest
Chuck, Donna, Avri to be the members of this small group. 

Grace was to have shared the framework for answering the questions that was
previously prepared by staff. However, it was held back while we discussed
the best approach. You will receive these shortly.

This means: 

.        That Sidley are on stand-by in relation to the ICANN Bylaws work
until the CWG has sorted out the questions asked by Sidley in the bylaws
document. 

.        Unless we hear any objections we will task Chuck, Avri and Donna to
form some answers to be reviewed by the CWG.

.        Then CWG will get back to Sidley with the answers in order for
Sidley to rework the bylaws.

AOB

Next call is the 12th of January at 16 UTC, where one of the issues will be
the discussion of the IPR document drafted by the DT IPR. It is important
that the CWG have a proper look at the IPR document, in particular the key
questions / decision points raised in it before the next CWG meeting and
ideally submit any comments by email before the next call. 

Happy holidays to all,

Jonathan and Lise

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151221/dc83b3c3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5909 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151221/dc83b3c3/smime-0001.p7s>