[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Comment Letter - PTI Bylaws

Tue Aug 9 18:41:53 UTC 2016

Let me echo Matthew's comment by saying that I support Chuck and Greg and do not support the objection.

Allan

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of matthew shears
Sent: August-09-16 2:37 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Greg Shatan; Christopher Wilkinson
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Comment Letter - PTI Bylaws

+ 1 Chuck and Greg.  In response to your question Chuck - no, I do not support the objection.
Matthew
On 09/08/2016 19:30, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
+ 1 Greg, noting of course that I am probably classified as one of the "few very interested stakeholders".  Actually, I think most of us or 'very interested stakeholders' or we wouldn't have spent such inordinate amounts of time for the last nearly two years.

My question of the WG is this: is this a one-off objection or is there support from others in the CWG for it?

It is very disturbing that this objection is coming at this late time regardless of whether it was expressed previously or not.  Unless I missed something, there was no significant objection in the CWG to seating Lise and Jonathan on the PTI Board initially.  If I am correct, this seems like a case of someone trying to get another bite at the apple when they failed previously.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         p
I fully respect Christopher's opinion and his right to express it but I strongly disagree with it, especially at this terribly late stage in the process.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 2:04 PM
To: Christopher Wilkinson
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> IANA
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Comment Letter - PTI Bylaws

A few brief thoughts in response.

1.  Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. PTI is a necessary element of the transaction and the Board is a element of the transition.  What's suggested here would pull the entire Transition over to the side, at least until some workaround was developed.  Initial Directors are commonplace in setting up new corporations.  I trust that Jonathan and Lise, both with significant experience in senior management and board matters, will withstand whatever apocryphal pressure might be put upon them.

2.  I'm not sure what a "very interested stakeholder" is.  If this means a very dedicated stakeholder, who is very interested in assisting the community in achieving its goals and who will work on these matters in spite of personal and professional interests in doing other things, I'll admit to that.  If this means someone who is operating in this CWG at the behest of "special interests" and whose actions are designed to advancing the undisclosed goals of those special interests, I categorically reject and resent that.  (The latter description might apply to others, and that's reasonable; it's just not my position, and if you are referring to others, then I withdraw my sense of umbrage.)

3.  Personally, I don't have any particular affinity for the PTI solution, and I was opposed to removing the IANA IPR from ICANN.  Both of these were supported by the consensus of this group, as was the overall concept of enhancing "separability."  On the latter point, I could have chosen to sulk and withdraw (or insist I was right long after it became an annoyance to the group).  I chose neither; rather, I pitched in and worked on accomplishing the CWG's chosen goal to the best of my ability.  I felt this was and is the right approach as a good community member and "multistakeholder."  I won't speak for CWG counsel, but any counsel's role is to advise and caution on risks and concerns, and when the path is chosen, to assist the client in seeing it through.  The fact that CWG's counsel is facilitating the chosen approach of the CWG is manifestly unexceptional; anything other than that would be peculiar, to say the least.  Finally, to see in this some grand and concerted plan to dismantle ICANN (as the IANA) seems rather hypervigilant, to say the least.  If someone has such a grand plan, I'm no better than a "useful idiot" in that regard.  I wouldn't discount it entirely as someone's plan or goal (and I have had my own musings on that front, without naming names), but I do not ascribe it to some larger group (and certainly not any group of which I am a part).

4.  The fact that legal documents (Bylaws, Articles of Incorporation, Agreements) contain legal language should not be shocking.  "Legalese" is often a pejorative term, and I avoid it here to avoid misinterpretation.  These documents are in fact necessary to implement the transition as designed.  If anyone finds the documents "impenetrable" in whole or in part, I'm sure that Sidley would be more than happy to walk through the documents line by line and explain them all to you (at their usual hourly rate).  (I might volunteer to do the same, but I've learned repeatedly that some who need such assistance are reject advice from a "participant" out of fear that the participant is "very interested" and thus would manipulate their explanations to serve some unseen agenda or master.)

5.  At the risk of repeating myself, the idea of a simple transition, with no separability or designed-in anticipation of separation, was rejected in this group a long time ago, and after months of arduous discussion.  I have not heard widespread discontent with that choice.  Making a more complex choice obviously led to more complex implementation.  I happen to think it's going quite well, though not without occasional bumps and hurdles.  It's certainly not gone so pear-shaped that it should be scrapped.  I will grant that for those "less interested" (in the non-pejorative sense of being less involved) may feel they have lost the thread a bit.  If there are webinars or recap meetings that could help those who feel that way, it might be a good thing.  Those who are lost, perplexed or confused often tend to imagine monsters around every bend where there's nothing to behold, and that should be avoided to the extent possible through explanation and edification.

6.  The fact that various bodies have no experience with something that doesn't exist yet also seems rather obvious, but not one to engender massive changes at the last minute.  That was rather to be expected, wasn't it?  An alternate reality without reorganization and separability (or one where any work on that is shelved) has a certain charm and attraction in its relative simplicity.  However, I see nothing in our current state of affairs that would support in any way a plan drastically dismantle something that has been approved by every community, the ICANN Board and the NTIA just for the sake of taking a deep breath and looking around a bit.  On the other hand, I can imagine quite a number of negative consequences from doing so at this late date, or even attempting to do so.  It's far better to make sure that we are "socializing" this plan as often as possible so that "monsters under the bed" of mistrust and opportunism can be pointed out to be mere dust balls that disintegrate just by blowing on them.

Apologies for breaking my promise of brevity.

Greg

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:
Dear Jonathan, Dear Lise:

I do not support this option. I consider that the constitution of PTI should be deferred until the Nominating Committee has made its appointments.
Although I respect and admire the offer from the Co-Chairs to act as temporary alternates for the - not-yet-appointed - NomCom Directors, I would be concerned that you - as PTI Board members - would be subject to unreasonable and unmanageable pressures meanwhile, including in the election of a Chair of the PTI Board.

In the light of recent experience, I note that CWG has been driven by a few very interested stakeholders towards a position that would facilitate, if not anticipate, an early separation of PTI from ICANN and its probable severance into two or three distinct entities, and that this orientation has been facilitated, if not explicitly supported, by CWG counsel. Whereas I am reasonable certain that this does not represent the opinion of a wide range of other stakeholders.

Also, I suggest that it is time to call a halt to the vast volume of impenetrable legalese that has been generated in the matters of the PTI Bylaws, the licensing of IANA IPR, and the so-called Annexe C. Most of which is unnecessary for the Transition at this stage when  - apparently - time is of the essence. Particularly as some of this material purports to address aspects of Internet management about which there are  - to the best of my knowledge - no current concerns. Specifically, all discussion of the legal aspects of eventual separation, severance or separability, should be deferred until the Empowered Community has effectively taken a decision that we wish to move in that direction, the procedures for which having been defined in the Transition proposal.

More generally, the Empowered Community, the PTI Board, and - dare I say so - CWG's Legal Counsel have, perforce to date, no experience in the implementation of the proposed Transition.
I suggest that it would be prudent to let the Transition function, as proposed and approved, for 12 to 18 months before going any further. Meanwhile we should avoid proposals that are so detailed and abstract that they engender at best mistrust and at worst a fear of opportunism.

Regards

Christopher Wilkinson

On 09 Aug 2016, at 17:30, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>> wrote:

Hi Sharon.

The IOTF was simply put in place to provide a high-frequency touch point for ICANN staff as they worked on the implementation. The context for the introduction of the IOTF was the "secondment issue" whereby ICANN staff got too far ahead of the community in their implementation work. The IOTF had no decision making capabilities, these remained reserved for the CWG. Therefore, I am not sure it is necessary to reference the IOTF.

Accordingly, I would suggest rewording the below as:

*       CWG-Stewardship Comment:  The CWG recognized that the Nominating Committee process for selecting the PTI Nominating Committee Directors would not be in place prior to the transition and therefore recommended that the two directors be identified prior to the transition to serve in the interim until the first election of PTI directors.  It was proposed that the Co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship, Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson, serve as the initial Nominating Committee Directors until the first election of the PTI directors.  The CWG-Stewardship supports this proposal.  Should these individuals be unable to serve, the CWG-Stewardship would select qualified alternate nominees, and appointment of these alternate nominees would be subject to ICANN's approval (not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed).  The CWG-Stewardship proposes that Section 5.5.1 of the Draft PTI Bylaws be modified as set forth below to describe the process for selecting the initial Nominating Committee Directors to be in place at the time of transition.

Any comment from others?

Thanks,

Jonathan

From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@<mailto:sflanagan@>sidley.com<http://sidley.com>]
Sent: 09 August 2016 06:12
To: Client Committee <cwg-client at icann.org<mailto:cwg-client at icann.org>>
Subject: [client com] FW: CWG Comment Letter - PTI Bylaws

Dear Client Committee,

Attached is a revised draft of the CWG comment letter to the PTI bylaws.  This reflects revisions to #4 and #5 of the comment letter.  Specifically, we have revised the draft to address the appointment of Lise and Jonathan as the initial non-ICANN PTI directors.

In particular, we would appreciate a review of the description of the IOTF work below for accuracy since we were not directly involved in those discussions.

Given the tight timing (comments are due on Thursday), we are sending this to you and ICANN legal simultaneously, and they may have further comments.

Best regards,
Sharon

1.     Initial Directors (Section 5.5.1)

*       Text from Draft PTI Bylaws: For the appointment of the initial directors of PTI, Section 5.5.1 of the Draft PTI Bylaws provides as follows: "Other than Directors initially appointed by the incorporator of the Corporation (which Directors shall hold office until the first election of Directors) and the President of the Corporation, the Directors shall be elected by the Member at the annual meeting of the Corporation...."

*       CWG-Stewardship Comment:  In connection with the work of the Implementation Oversight Task Force, it was noted that the Nominating Committee process for selecting the PTI Nominating Committee Directors would not be in place prior to the transition and recommended that the two directors be identified prior to the transition to serve in the interim until the first election of PTI directors.  It was recommended that the Co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship, Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson, serve as the initial Nominating Committee Directors until the first election of the PTI directors.  The CWG-Stewardship supports this recommendation.  Should these individuals be unable to serve, the CWG-Stewardship would select qualified alternate nominees, and appointment of these alternate nominees would be subject to ICANN's approval (not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed).  The CWG-Stewardship proposes that Section 5.5.1 of the Draft PTI Bylaws be modified as set forth below to describe the process for selecting the initial Nominating Committee Directors to be in place at the time of transition.

"Each initial Director of the Corporation shall hold office until the first election of Directors for such Director's seat.  Other than The initial Directors initially shall be appointed by theMember incorporator of the Corporation (which Directors shall hold office until the first election of Directors), with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions selecting two qualified nominees for appointment as the initial Nominating Committee Directors by the Member.  Other than the initial Directors and the President of the Corporation, the Directors shall be elected by the Member at the annual meeting...."

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

****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________
Cwg-client mailing list
Cwg-client at icann.org<mailto:Cwg-client at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

--

--------------

Matthew Shears

Global Internet Policy and Human Rights

Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)

+ 44 771 2472987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160809/60f32b0a/attachment-0001.html>