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

[Austin, Donna]

Yes please Chuck, let's pick this up in January.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 22, 2015, at 5:26 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:

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<mailto: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<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr at difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr at difo.dk>>
Date: Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:05 AM
To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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/20151221/6fe3f448/attachment.html>