<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Ok, I have had time to read the transcript. I am even more strongly committed to developing a comment as ICG.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Alissa said on the call that 1.1.d.(ii) \u201ccreates a giant loophole that allows all of the work that was done to more precisely define the mission statement of
ICANN in these bylaws ...to be completely contravened by whatever gets written into the ICANN PTI contract Because what this is says is that no one in the future will ever be able to challenge that contract on the basis that it contravenes the mission.\u201d
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">[and, I might add, the RZM contract, and renewals of registry contracts].<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">The only answer I saw to this was that we don\u2019t need to worry about it because the PTI contract will be put up for public comment.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Alissa also made the point:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">"this memo ... seems to imply that ... the most important thing out of all of this is that ICANN can continue to perform the IANA function. And I think what we
all learned in (unintelligible) in terms of what the ICG proposal says is that in fact that is not the most important thing. The most important thing is that the IANA functions can continue to be performed by some operator who\u2019s capable of performing them
according to the service level agreements that the community ...has. And those two things are not the same. And I certainly \u2013I will put my IETF hat on here for a second and say that I think from an IETF perspective the important thing is that a protocol parameters
functions can continue to be performed, not that they can only continue to be performed by ICANN."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I don't think this argument of Alissa was ever answered. It seems like there could be ways of drafting these sections that do not commit us to a specific contract
but makes it clear that performance of the IANA functions is not challengable as a mission violation so long as the community actually wants ICANN to perform those functions.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Indeed, I am having trouble understanding the threat that these sections are supposed to avoid.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">However, the most dangerous mission-limitation-busting potential is in the renewals section (F). This is problematic partly because the CCWG never agreed to exempt
renewals. We agreed to grandfather existing agreements, for the sake of stability. But the assumption was that if anything in these existing agreements contravened the new mission limitations, that they COULD be challenged during a renewal process. A contract
renewal with a registry could include all kinds of regulatory measures that exceed the mission, and if these measures are framed as a "renewal of an existing agreement" then ICANN could in principle get away with anything.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">So I hope we are able to make it clear to ICANN and the CCWG that these provisions need to be changed..
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, April 29, 2016 3:00 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@LStAmour.org>; IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg@ianacg.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">For folks following this issue, it is definitely worth reading the transcript or listening to the recording of the last CCWG call: <a href="https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58730392">https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58730392</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The more that I have thought about this, it has become clear to me that the core issue here is that there is a portion of bylaws section 1.1(d) that is not called for either by our proposal or by the CCWG proposal, as Lynn says. Had the
content of 1.1(d)(ii)(B-E) been discussed as part of the transition proposal development, I think the concerns being raised now would have been raised then, and the whole community would have had time to sort them out. (I note that there was an extended discussion
about RA/RAA agreements in the CCWG and that did result in text in its proposal in paragraph 147, which is reflected in 1.1(d)(ii)(A). But that does not extend to any other agreements.) Sections 1.1(d)(ii)(B-E) seem to have been created out of whole cloth
by the bylaws drafting team, and that was not within their remit in my opinion. The Bylaws are just supposed to implement the proposals.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think there are substantive issues too, but from an ICG perspective we may or may not want to focus on those. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would support sending a comment. We sent a message early on during the bylaws drafting and received no response, and the call to discuss this didn\u2019t even occur until after the bylaws were put out for public comment.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Alissa<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Apr 29, 2016, at 11:17 AM, Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I support what you are saying. I take it you are not satisfied with the lawyers' explanation? I was not able to attend the 0:400 call a few days ago so was not able to question them about it or hear their answers.<br>
<br>
--MM<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Lynn St.Amour [<a href="mailto:Lynn@LStAmour.org">mailto:Lynn@LStAmour.org</a>]<br>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 1:55 PM<br>
To: Alissa Cooper <<a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in">alissa@cooperw.in</a>>; Mueller, Milton L<br>
<<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a>>; IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-<br>
<a href="mailto:cg@ianacg.org">cg@ianacg.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback<br>
<br>
Hi Alissa, Milton, all,<br>
<br>
I would like to come back to this subject. Specifically, I would like to propose<br>
that the ICG send in a statement to the By-laws comment period.<br>
<br>
Alissa commented on a specific concern (see thread below) and I also believe<br>
the ICG should be concerned about the overreach in the draft bylaws.<br>
<br>
My main concerns are:<br>
<br>
- the fact that these draft by-laws, through the grand-fathering provisions,<br>
allow external agreements to define ICANN's Mission which seems like a bad<br>
idea for many reasons. Further, this contradicts the desires of the community<br>
(or is a run around the community - intentional or not) who worked hard to<br>
clarify and correctly state ICANN\u2019s mission throughout the IANA Transition<br>
process (paragraphs 140-144 of the CCWG-Accountability proposal).<br>
<br>
- the ICG process was fashioned to ensure that the transition plans reflected<br>
the consensus of the Internet community. And, it was to respect the roles and<br>
responsibilities of the OCs in defining their own transition plans. The ICG and<br>
the CCWG reports define those wishes, and any changes to the bylaws were to<br>
be to implement those wishes, nothing more. Yet provisions in sections<br>
1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(D) are outside the scope of both the ICG and the CCWG-<br>
Accountability proposals, and so there has not been appropriate community<br>
involvement or review for those changes. Note: these sections affect much<br>
of the Internet community, as they apply to agreements between ICANN and<br>
the ASO, NRO, IETF, Root Zone Maintainer, and PTI.<br>
<br>
For transparency: the IAB/IETF are also concerned about the overreach and<br>
are drafting their own comments, and as an IAB appointee to the ICG, I am<br>
part of that review as well.<br>
<br>
If there is support for the ICG sending in a comment, I would be happy to work<br>
with Alissa and others to draft something for ICG review.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Lynn<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">On Apr 12, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Alissa Cooper <<a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in">alissa@cooperw.in</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
From the minutes it looks like this was discussed on the CCWG call and there<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">will be follow-up.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">On Apr 12, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a>><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">wrote:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
I sent it yesterday but there has been no response at all.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Alissa Cooper [<a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in">mailto:alissa@cooperw.in</a>]<br>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:54 PM<br>
To: Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a>><br>
Cc: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <<a href="mailto:internal-cg@ianacg.org">internal-cg@ianacg.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback<br>
<br>
I think that would be fine.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Alissa<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">On Apr 11, 2016, at 1:04 PM, Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a>><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">wrote:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Alissa<br>
If you don't mind I will just forward your message to the bylaws<br>
and CWG<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">lists.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">If there is some other way you want me to do this, please let me know.<br>
<br>
--MM<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Internal-cg [<a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@ianacg.org">mailto:internal-cg-bounces@ianacg.org</a>] On<br>
Behalf Of Alissa Cooper<br>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:49 PM<br>
To: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <<a href="mailto:internal-cg@ianacg.org">internal-cg@ianacg.org</a>><br>
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback<br>
<br>
I have looked a bit at the draft bylaws and I\u2019d like to ask<br>
Kavouss and Milton to bring the following issue back to the bylaws<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">drafting group:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Section 1.1(d)(ii) incorporates by reference a number of documents<br>
external to the bylaws as a means to prevent challenges on the<br>
basis that those documents conflict with or violate the bylaws. In<br>
particular, bullet (D) applies this provision to "the IANA Naming<br>
Function Contract between ICANN and PTI effective [October 1, 2016]."<br>
<br>
Given the ICG's historical encouragement of the community to meet<br>
timelines necessary for a successful transition, I find this<br>
provision to be extremely problematic. It incorporates a reference<br>
to a document that does not exist yet and that is unlikely to be<br>
completed by the time the bylaws are supposed to be done (early<br>
June). In fact, it is not even clear at this point whether the new<br>
ICANN affiliate to be setup will be name "PTI" or have some other<br>
name. I don't understand how anyone can reason about whether<br>
1.1(d)(ii) is an acceptable bylaws provision if it references a<br>
document that has not been written. (This also applies to (B) and<br>
(C) since it could apply to future documents that haven\u2019t been<br>
written<br>
yet.)<br>
<br>
Furthermore, I question whether it is a sound decision to<br>
essentially allow for documents external to the bylaws to be able<br>
to modify the bylaws (under (F)). This section would make more<br>
sense if it was entirely internally specified, without the<br>
references to external documents. At a minimum, I think we should<br>
recommend that (D) be<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">removed.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Thanks,<br>
Alissa<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Internal-cg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org">Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org">http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>