From milton at gatech.edu  Fri Apr  1 16:46:23 2016
From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 16:46:23 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Trouble with the bylaws-coord list
Message-ID: <BY2PR07MB24082C08BAA07574ABD0A03CA19A0@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

Colleagues:
Nominally, I have been put on the bylaws coordination list as an ICG member providing liaison and oversight. However, someone (not sure who, probably ICANN staff) is taking a very restrictive approach to this bylaws drafting process. As far as I can tell, I have no posting privileges on the list. Moreover, I cannot even see the archives of the list and apparently no one else can without a password. I have requested a password to enable viewing the archives several days ago and there has been no response.

The posting restrictions are simply absurdly inefficient. The drafting group needs feedback and what sense does it make to prevent list participants from immediately commenting upon drafts or questions sent to the list?

I do not think this is appropriate. Can our chairs make some inquiries and get these restrictions removed?

Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160401/4e1af21f/attachment.html>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Fri Apr  1 18:06:24 2016
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 11:06:24 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Trouble with the bylaws-coord list
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR07MB24082C08BAA07574ABD0A03CA19A0@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BY2PR07MB24082C08BAA07574ABD0A03CA19A0@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <69B7196D-673F-4F91-A979-98CE05521F0F@cooperw.in>

Let me look into this, I think this is probably a snafu.

Alissa

> On Apr 1, 2016, at 9:46 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> Colleagues:
> Nominally, I have been put on the bylaws coordination list as an ICG member providing liaison and oversight. However, someone (not sure who, probably ICANN staff) is taking a very restrictive approach to this bylaws drafting process. As far as I can tell, I have no posting privileges on the list. Moreover, I cannot even see the archives of the list and apparently no one else can without a password. I have requested a password to enable viewing the archives several days ago and there has been no response. 
>  
> The posting restrictions are simply absurdly inefficient. The drafting group needs feedback and what sense does it make to prevent list participants from immediately commenting upon drafts or questions sent to the list?
>  
> I do not think this is appropriate. Can our chairs make some inquiries and get these restrictions removed?
>  
> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
> Professor, School of Public Policy
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org <http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160401/bbb48c0b/attachment.html>

From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Sat Apr  2 06:46:50 2016
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 08:46:50 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Trouble with the bylaws-coord list
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR07MB24082C08BAA07574ABD0A03CA19A0@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BY2PR07MB24082C08BAA07574ABD0A03CA19A0@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <C994FFAD-020E-4A66-8A40-642716362CA2@gmail.com>

Dear Milton
Thank you very much for the message
I had the same opinion but when I share it with another colleague
He reminded me that from the date that the proceeding of   House sub- committee called the transition of stewardship from USG to Global Multistakeholder Community "privatisation of ICANN" most if the things become private issue and the community is PRACTICALLY OUT.
Individual from private sector holding many positions in all little group the structure of which was never disclosed nor discussed.
It is a pity that even the nominal label of Multistakeholder is begins to dusappear
Renfards
Kavouss


Sent from my iPhone

> On 1 Apr 2016, at 18:46, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> Colleagues:
> Nominally, I have been put on the bylaws coordination list as an ICG member providing liaison and oversight. However, someone (not sure who, probably ICANN staff) is taking a very restrictive approach to this bylaws drafting process. As far as I can tell, I have no posting privileges on the list. Moreover, I cannot even see the archives of the list and apparently no one else can without a password. I have requested a password to enable viewing the archives several days ago and there has been no response.
>  
> The posting restrictions are simply absurdly inefficient. The drafting group needs feedback and what sense does it make to prevent list participants from immediately commenting upon drafts or questions sent to the list?
>  
> I do not think this is appropriate. Can our chairs make some inquiries and get these restrictions removed?
>  
> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
> Professor, School of Public Policy
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160402/b1851a9a/attachment.html>

From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Sun Apr  3 11:37:33 2016
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 13:37:33 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April
	2016 version
In-Reply-To: <32114627-3D9F-4EF6-96A1-8996321EA6B9@icann.org>
References: <32114627-3D9F-4EF6-96A1-8996321EA6B9@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CACNR4-K+p9jHYcKK7Q_Kd_hGGV4sXdij43=PGD2Aac-8wTaJtA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear
oN 1314
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord <bylaws-coord at icann.org>
Date: 2016-04-03 13:16 GMT+02:00
Subject: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version
To: bylaws-coord at icann.org
Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan at sidley.com>, "Cc: Zagorin, Janet S." <
jzagorin at sidley.com>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton at sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler <
ICANN at adlercolvin.com>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer at sidley.com>,
"Mohan, Vivek" <vivek.mohan at sidley.com>, "Clark, Michael A." <
mclark at sidley.com>, "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher at sidley.com>, Sidley ICANN
CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>, "Kerry, Cameron" <ckerry at sidley.com>,
"McNicholas, Edward R." <emcnicholas at sidley.com>, Daniel Halloran <
daniel.halloran at icann.org>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos at icann.org>, "Boelter,
Jessica C.K." <jboelter at sidley.com>, "Fuller, Miles" <wfuller at sidley.com>,
"Tam, Tennie H." <tennie.tam at sidley.com>


Dear Bylaws Coordination Group,

Please find attached a document – DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr)
(“DRAFT BYLAWS”) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the
last full draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to
provide another full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2
April.  The DRAFT BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the
legal drafting group.  There is also an Issue List attached, which are a
set of additional questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws
Coordination Group.

 We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG
colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week

*Recent Work* – During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made up
of Sidley’s team, Adler’s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and worked
through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN Bylaws.
Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws Coordination
Group during this two-week period asking questions and incorporating that
feedback into the new draft.  There is likely to be the need for some
additional discussions as we work toward a public comment version of the
new ICANN bylaws.

*More Work to Do* – There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in
identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that
are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions,
and polishing the draft before publication for public comment.  The legal
teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and
comments during this period.

*Legal Teams have not yet “certified”* – Since a) the Bylaws Coordination
Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these DRAFT
BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is still
review and polishing to be done by the legal teams – the legal teams have
not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the
recommendations within the Proposals.

As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including
receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week
before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version
for Public Comment

*Next Steps* –

1)   *Now until 13 April* – members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination
Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide
feedback to legal teams;

2)   *Now until 18 April*, (with particular focus during week of 13-18
April) – legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with
the Bylaws Drafting Group;

3)   *20 April* – posting date for public comment period for new proposed
bylaws – with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets the
proposal recommendations.

———

As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days,
to get ICANN’s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these
important changes.

We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them
in the spirit that they are offered… to help all of us to be able to
collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way
possible — to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community
empowered ICANN.

John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei



_____________________
____________________






_______________________________________________
bylaws-coord mailing list
bylaws-coord at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160403/9a2a3a75/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Issues List for Bylaws Coordination Group (April 2 2016).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 43220 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160403/9a2a3a75/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DRAFT-NEW-ICANN-BYLAWS-vers2APR.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 284554 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160403/9a2a3a75/attachment-0001.docx>

From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Sun Apr  3 11:43:56 2016
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 13:43:56 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April
	2016 version
In-Reply-To: <CACNR4-K+p9jHYcKK7Q_Kd_hGGV4sXdij43=PGD2Aac-8wTaJtA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <32114627-3D9F-4EF6-96A1-8996321EA6B9@icann.org>
	<CACNR4-K+p9jHYcKK7Q_Kd_hGGV4sXdij43=PGD2Aac-8wTaJtA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACNR4-Jb4LabDO8uZ9PR+DrNiLRSYGhKsWLkhtqM7pc8NFTTzg@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
Date: 2016-04-03 13:37 GMT+02:00
Subject: Fwd: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>, Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir at mbash.net>,
Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>, "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <
internal-cg at ianacg.org>, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>


Dear Alissa
Deal Milton
Deal All,
On 1314 European Central Time, ,1114 UTC, as a Member of Bylaws
Coordination Group, I have received the following.
It was expected to receive this draft Yesterday .
I will start immediately to examine and prepare comments.
No doubt I will share those comment  with you .However, due to the
importance and critical cirsumstances, you may also wish to kindly send
either to Alissa ,Milton or me your comment, if any, within the time limit
specified in thext
Regards
Kavouss
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord <bylaws-coord at icann.org>
Date: 2016-04-03 13:16 GMT+02:00
Subject: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version
To: bylaws-coord at icann.org
Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan at sidley.com>, "Cc: Zagorin, Janet S." <
jzagorin at sidley.com>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton at sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler <
ICANN at adlercolvin.com>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer at sidley.com>,
"Mohan, Vivek" <vivek.mohan at sidley.com>, "Clark, Michael A." <
mclark at sidley.com>, "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher at sidley.com>, Sidley ICANN
CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>, "Kerry, Cameron" <ckerry at sidley.com>,
"McNicholas, Edward R." <emcnicholas at sidley.com>, Daniel Halloran <
daniel.halloran at icann.org>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos at icann.org>, "Boelter,
Jessica C.K." <jboelter at sidley.com>, "Fuller, Miles" <wfuller at sidley.com>,
"Tam, Tennie H." <tennie.tam at sidley.com>


Dear Bylaws Coordination Group,

Please find attached a document – DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr)
(“DRAFT BYLAWS”) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the
last full draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to
provide another full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2
April.  The DRAFT BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the
legal drafting group.  There is also an Issue List attached, which are a
set of additional questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws
Coordination Group.

 We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG
colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week

*Recent Work* – During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made up
of Sidley’s team, Adler’s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and worked
through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN Bylaws.
Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws Coordination
Group during this two-week period asking questions and incorporating that
feedback into the new draft.  There is likely to be the need for some
additional discussions as we work toward a public comment version of the
new ICANN bylaws.

*More Work to Do* – There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in
identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that
are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions,
and polishing the draft before publication for public comment.  The legal
teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and
comments during this period.

*Legal Teams have not yet “certified”* – Since a) the Bylaws Coordination
Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these DRAFT
BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is still
review and polishing to be done by the legal teams – the legal teams have
not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the
recommendations within the Proposals.

As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including
receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week
before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version
for Public Comment

*Next Steps* –

1)   *Now until 13 April* – members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination
Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide
feedback to legal teams;

2)   *Now until 18 April*, (with particular focus during week of 13-18
April) – legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with
the Bylaws Drafting Group;

3)   *20 April* – posting date for public comment period for new proposed
bylaws – with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets the
proposal recommendations.

———

As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days,
to get ICANN’s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these
important changes.

We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them
in the spirit that they are offered… to help all of us to be able to
collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way
possible — to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community
empowered ICANN.

John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei



_____________________
____________________






_______________________________________________
bylaws-coord mailing list
bylaws-coord at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160403/792746fb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Issues List for Bylaws Coordination Group (April 2 2016).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 43220 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160403/792746fb/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DRAFT-NEW-ICANN-BYLAWS-vers2APR.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 284554 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160403/792746fb/attachment-0001.docx>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Sun Apr  3 15:27:45 2016
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 12:27:45 -0300
Subject: [Internal-cg] [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April
	2016 version
In-Reply-To: <CACNR4-Jb4LabDO8uZ9PR+DrNiLRSYGhKsWLkhtqM7pc8NFTTzg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <32114627-3D9F-4EF6-96A1-8996321EA6B9@icann.org>
	<CACNR4-K+p9jHYcKK7Q_Kd_hGGV4sXdij43=PGD2Aac-8wTaJtA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACNR4-Jb4LabDO8uZ9PR+DrNiLRSYGhKsWLkhtqM7pc8NFTTzg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A78220A2-985C-46D5-8099-F7140C727AAA@cooperw.in>

Thank you, Kavouss. Do you know if there is any plan to provide a redlined version or a list of the changes from the existing bylaws?

I think we should say that if any other ICG members want to provide feedback from the ICG perspective, they should send it to the ICG list by April 11 at 23:59 UTC. That way Kavouss and Milton will have a bit of time to consolidate comments and take them back.

Alissa

> On Apr 3, 2016, at 8:43 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
> Date: 2016-04-03 13:37 GMT+02:00
> Subject: Fwd: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version
> To: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>, Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir at mbash.net <mailto:mbashir at mbash.net>>, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se <mailto:paf at frobbit.se>>, "internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>" <internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>>, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
> 
> 
> Dear Alissa
> Deal Milton
> Deal All,
> On 1314 European Central Time, ,1114 UTC, as a Member of Bylaws Coordination Group, I have received the following.
> It was expected to receive this draft Yesterday .
> I will start immediately to examine and prepare comments.
> No doubt I will share those comment  with you .However, due to the importance and critical cirsumstances, you may also wish to kindly send either to Alissa ,Milton or me your comment, if any, within the time limit specified in thext
> Regards
> Kavouss 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord <bylaws-coord at icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>>
> Date: 2016-04-03 13:16 GMT+02:00
> Subject: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version
> To: bylaws-coord at icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>
> Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan at sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com>>, "Cc: Zagorin, Janet S." <jzagorin at sidley.com <mailto:jzagorin at sidley.com>>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton at sidley.com <mailto:thilton at sidley.com>>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN at adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer at sidley.com <mailto:jhofheimer at sidley.com>>, "Mohan, Vivek" <vivek.mohan at sidley.com <mailto:vivek.mohan at sidley.com>>, "Clark, Michael A." <mclark at sidley.com <mailto:mclark at sidley.com>>, "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher at sidley.com <mailto:rboucher at sidley.com>>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>>, "Kerry, Cameron" <ckerry at sidley.com <mailto:ckerry at sidley.com>>, "McNicholas, Edward R." <emcnicholas at sidley.com <mailto:emcnicholas at sidley.com>>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran at icann.org <mailto:daniel.halloran at icann.org>>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos at icann.org <mailto:amy.stathos at icann.org>>, "Boelter, Jessica C.K." <jboelter at sidley.com <mailto:jboelter at sidley.com>>, "Fuller, Miles" <wfuller at sidley.com <mailto:wfuller at sidley.com>>, "Tam, Tennie H." <tennie.tam at sidley.com <mailto:tennie.tam at sidley.com>>
> 
> 
> Dear Bylaws Coordination Group,
> 
> Please find attached a document – DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr) (“DRAFT BYLAWS”) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the last full draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to provide another full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2 April.  The DRAFT BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the legal drafting group.  There is also an Issue List attached, which are a set of additional questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws Coordination Group.
> 
>  We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week
> 
> 
> Recent Work – During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made up of Sidley’s team, Adler’s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and worked through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN Bylaws.  Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws Coordination Group during this two-week period asking questions and incorporating that feedback into the new draft.  There is likely to be the need for some additional discussions as we work toward a public comment version of the new ICANN bylaws.
> 
> 
> More Work to Do – There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions, and polishing the draft before publication for public comment.  The legal teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and comments during this period.
> 
> 
> Legal Teams have not yet “certified” – Since a) the Bylaws Coordination Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these DRAFT BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is still review and polishing to be done by the legal teams – the legal teams have not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the recommendations within the Proposals.
> 
> 
> As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version for Public Comment
> 
> 
> Next Steps –
> 
> 
> 1)   Now until 13 April – members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide feedback to legal teams;
> 
> 
> 2)   Now until 18 April, (with particular focus during week of 13-18 April) – legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with the Bylaws Drafting Group;
> 
> 
> 3)   20 April – posting date for public comment period for new proposed bylaws – with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets the proposal recommendations.
> 
> 
> ———
> 
> As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days, to get ICANN’s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these important changes.
> 
> 
> We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them in the spirit that they are offered… to help all of us to be able to collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way possible — to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community empowered ICANN.
> 
> John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _____________________
> ____________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bylaws-coord mailing list
> bylaws-coord at icann.org <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord>
> 
> 
> 
> <Issues List for Bylaws Coordination Group (April 2 2016).docx><DRAFT-NEW-ICANN-BYLAWS-vers2APR.docx>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160403/0bed85db/attachment.html>

From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Sun Apr  3 15:33:20 2016
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 17:33:20 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April
	2016 version
In-Reply-To: <A78220A2-985C-46D5-8099-F7140C727AAA@cooperw.in>
References: <32114627-3D9F-4EF6-96A1-8996321EA6B9@icann.org>
	<CACNR4-K+p9jHYcKK7Q_Kd_hGGV4sXdij43=PGD2Aac-8wTaJtA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACNR4-Jb4LabDO8uZ9PR+DrNiLRSYGhKsWLkhtqM7pc8NFTTzg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A78220A2-985C-46D5-8099-F7140C727AAA@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <CACNR4-KiRLHOoqOQW4Ohm+z+WpOxQ0sCyda0knMfs+vaGjMcXw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Alissa,
I have asked them three times not only red line revision mark but cross
reference to CCWG Recs. .and ICG proposal which includes a combines
proposals from three communities.
I was waiting for this doc. till 1315 UTC today and made my week-end free
but I am  not sure whether I will be  able to read such a delicate, legal
and bulky doc.
I do not yet know the arrangements  in the
Bylaws coordination Team ,
CCWG
CWG
I will let you know as soon as I get any additional info.
Regards
Kavouss

2016-04-03 17:27 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:

> Thank you, Kavouss. Do you know if there is any plan to provide a redlined
> version or a list of the changes from the existing bylaws?
>
> I think we should say that if any other ICG members want to provide
> feedback from the ICG perspective, they should send it to the ICG list by
> April 11 at 23:59 UTC. That way Kavouss and Milton will have a bit of time
> to consolidate comments and take them back.
>
> Alissa
>
> On Apr 3, 2016, at 8:43 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> Date: 2016-04-03 13:37 GMT+02:00
> Subject: Fwd: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version
> To: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>, Mohamed El Bashir <
> mbashir at mbash.net>, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>, "
> internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>, "Mueller, Milton L" <
> milton at gatech.edu>
>
>
> Dear Alissa
> Deal Milton
> Deal All,
> On 1314 European Central Time, ,1114 UTC, as a Member of Bylaws
> Coordination Group, I have received the following.
> It was expected to receive this draft Yesterday .
> I will start immediately to examine and prepare comments.
> No doubt I will share those comment  with you .However, due to the
> importance and critical cirsumstances, you may also wish to kindly send
> either to Alissa ,Milton or me your comment, if any, within the time limit
> specified in thext
> Regards
> Kavouss
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord <bylaws-coord at icann.org>
> Date: 2016-04-03 13:16 GMT+02:00
> Subject: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version
> To: bylaws-coord at icann.org
> Cc: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan at sidley.com>, "Cc: Zagorin, Janet S." <
> jzagorin at sidley.com>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton at sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler <
> ICANN at adlercolvin.com>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer at sidley.com>,
> "Mohan, Vivek" <vivek.mohan at sidley.com>, "Clark, Michael A." <
> mclark at sidley.com>, "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher at sidley.com>, Sidley ICANN
> CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>, "Kerry, Cameron" <ckerry at sidley.com>,
> "McNicholas, Edward R." <emcnicholas at sidley.com>, Daniel Halloran <
> daniel.halloran at icann.org>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos at icann.org>,
> "Boelter, Jessica C.K." <jboelter at sidley.com>, "Fuller, Miles" <
> wfuller at sidley.com>, "Tam, Tennie H." <tennie.tam at sidley.com>
>
>
> Dear Bylaws Coordination Group,
>
> Please find attached a document – DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr)
> (“DRAFT BYLAWS”) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the
> last full draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to
> provide another full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2
> April.  The DRAFT BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the
> legal drafting group.  There is also an Issue List attached, which are a
> set of additional questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws
> Coordination Group.
>
>  We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG
> colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week
>
> *Recent Work* – During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made
> up of Sidley’s team, Adler’s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and
> worked through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN
> Bylaws.  Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws
> Coordination Group during this two-week period asking questions and
> incorporating that feedback into the new draft.  There is likely to be the
> need for some additional discussions as we work toward a public comment
> version of the new ICANN bylaws.
>
> *More Work to Do* – There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in
> identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that
> are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions,
> and polishing the draft before publication for public comment.  The legal
> teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and
> comments during this period.
>
> *Legal Teams have not yet “certified”* – Since a) the Bylaws Coordination
> Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these DRAFT
> BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is still
> review and polishing to be done by the legal teams – the legal teams have
> not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the
> recommendations within the Proposals.
>
> As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including
> receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week
> before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version
> for Public Comment
>
> *Next Steps* –
>
> 1)   *Now until 13 April* – members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination
> Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide
> feedback to legal teams;
>
> 2)   *Now until 18 April*, (with particular focus during week of 13-18
> April) – legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with
> the Bylaws Drafting Group;
>
> 3)   *20 April* – posting date for public comment period for new proposed
> bylaws – with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets the
> proposal recommendations.
>
> ———
>
> As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days,
> to get ICANN’s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these
> important changes.
>
> We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them
> in the spirit that they are offered… to help all of us to be able to
> collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way
> possible — to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community
> empowered ICANN.
>
> John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei
>
>
>
> _____________________
> ____________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bylaws-coord mailing list
> bylaws-coord at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord
>
>
>
> <Issues List for Bylaws Coordination Group (April 2 2016).docx>
> <DRAFT-NEW-ICANN-BYLAWS-vers2APR.docx>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160403/3d25273b/attachment.html>

From milton at gatech.edu  Sun Apr  3 15:37:22 2016
From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 15:37:22 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April
	2016 version
In-Reply-To: <32114627-3D9F-4EF6-96A1-8996321EA6B9@icann.org>
References: <32114627-3D9F-4EF6-96A1-8996321EA6B9@icann.org>
Message-ID: <BY2PR07MB2408D21508F2DE0D5AFEE406A19C0@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

In case anyone besides me has a chance to review this, here is a draft of the bylaws

From: bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org [mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord
Sent: Sunday, April 3, 2016 7:16 AM
To: bylaws-coord at icann.org
Cc: Flanagan, Sharon <sflanagan at sidley.com>; Cc: Zagorin, Janet S. <jzagorin at sidley.com>; Hilton, Tyler <thilton at sidley.com>; ICANN-Adler <ICANN at adlercolvin.com>; Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer at sidley.com>; Mohan, Vivek <vivek.mohan at sidley.com>; Clark, Michael A. <mclark at sidley.com>; Boucher, Rick <rboucher at sidley.com>; Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>; Kerry, Cameron <ckerry at sidley.com>; McNicholas, Edward R. <emcnicholas at sidley.com>; Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran at icann.org>; Amy Stathos <amy.stathos at icann.org>; Boelter, Jessica C.K. <jboelter at sidley.com>; Fuller, Miles <wfuller at sidley.com>; Tam, Tennie H. <tennie.tam at sidley.com>
Subject: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version

Dear Bylaws Coordination Group,
Please find attached a document – DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr) (“DRAFT BYLAWS”) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the last full draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to provide another full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2 April.  The DRAFT BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the legal drafting group.  There is also an Issue List attached, which are a set of additional questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws Coordination Group.
 We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week
Recent Work – During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made up of Sidley’s team, Adler’s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and worked through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN Bylaws.  Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws Coordination Group during this two-week period asking questions and incorporating that feedback into the new draft.  There is likely to be the need for some additional discussions as we work toward a public comment version of the new ICANN bylaws.
More Work to Do – There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions, and polishing the draft before publication for public comment.  The legal teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and comments during this period.
Legal Teams have not yet “certified” – Since a) the Bylaws Coordination Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these DRAFT BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is still review and polishing to be done by the legal teams – the legal teams have not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the recommendations within the Proposals.
As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version for Public Comment
Next Steps –
1)   Now until 13 April – members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide feedback to legal teams;
2)   Now until 18 April, (with particular focus during week of 13-18 April) – legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with the Bylaws Drafting Group;
3)   20 April – posting date for public comment period for new proposed bylaws – with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets the proposal recommendations.
———
As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days, to get ICANN’s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these important changes.
We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them in the spirit that they are offered… to help all of us to be able to collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way possible — to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community empowered ICANN.
John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160403/f1954bde/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Issues List for Bylaws Coordination Group (April 2 2016).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 43220 bytes
Desc: Issues List for Bylaws Coordination Group (April 2 2016).docx
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160403/f1954bde/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160403/f1954bde/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DRAFT-NEW-ICANN-BYLAWS-vers2APR.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 284554 bytes
Desc: DRAFT-NEW-ICANN-BYLAWS-vers2APR.docx
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160403/f1954bde/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160403/f1954bde/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
bylaws-coord mailing list
bylaws-coord at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord

From milton at gatech.edu  Sun Apr  3 16:49:37 2016
From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 16:49:37 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: FW: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2
	April	2016 version
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR07MB2408A5F4A62430ED9946D98BA19C0@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <32114627-3D9F-4EF6-96A1-8996321EA6B9@icann.org>
	<BY2PR07MB2408D21508F2DE0D5AFEE406A19C0@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<BY2PR07MB2408A5F4A62430ED9946D98BA19C0@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <BY2PR07MB24086166EF5FC7313BE88C50A19C0@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>


Sorry, I sent this off before seeing that Kavouss had already sent them.
On the topic of redlined versions, or comparisons, Bernard did a comparison in Word which is attached.

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L
Sent: Sunday, April 3, 2016 11:37 AM
To: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>>
Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version

In case anyone besides me has a chance to review this, here is a draft of the bylaws

From: bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord
Sent: Sunday, April 3, 2016 7:16 AM
To: bylaws-coord at icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>
Cc: Flanagan, Sharon <sflanagan at sidley.com<mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com>>; Cc: Zagorin, Janet S. <jzagorin at sidley.com<mailto:jzagorin at sidley.com>>; Hilton, Tyler <thilton at sidley.com<mailto:thilton at sidley.com>>; ICANN-Adler <ICANN at adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>; Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer at sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer at sidley.com>>; Mohan, Vivek <vivek.mohan at sidley.com<mailto:vivek.mohan at sidley.com>>; Clark, Michael A. <mclark at sidley.com<mailto:mclark at sidley.com>>; Boucher, Rick <rboucher at sidley.com<mailto:rboucher at sidley.com>>; Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>>; Kerry, Cameron <ckerry at sidley.com<mailto:ckerry at sidley.com>>; McNicholas, Edward R. <emcnicholas at sidley.com<mailto:emcnicholas at sidley.com>>; Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran at icann.org<mailto:daniel.halloran at icann.org>>; Amy Stathos <amy.stathos at icann.org<mailto:amy.stathos at icann.org>>; Boelter, Jessica C.K. <jboelter at sidley.com<mailto:jboelter at sidley.com>>; Fuller, Miles <wfuller at sidley.com<mailto:wfuller at sidley.com>>; Tam, Tennie H. <tennie.tam at sidley.com<mailto:tennie.tam at sidley.com>>
Subject: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version

Dear Bylaws Coordination Group,
Please find attached a document – DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr) (“DRAFT BYLAWS”) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the last full draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to provide another full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2 April.  The DRAFT BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the legal drafting group.  There is also an Issue List attached, which are a set of additional questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws Coordination Group.
 We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week
Recent Work – During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made up of Sidley’s team, Adler’s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and worked through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN Bylaws.  Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws Coordination Group during this two-week period asking questions and incorporating that feedback into the new draft.  There is likely to be the need for some additional discussions as we work toward a public comment version of the new ICANN bylaws.
More Work to Do – There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions, and polishing the draft before publication for public comment.  The legal teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and comments during this period.
Legal Teams have not yet “certified” – Since a) the Bylaws Coordination Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these DRAFT BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is still review and polishing to be done by the legal teams – the legal teams have not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the recommendations within the Proposals.
As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version for Public Comment
Next Steps –
1)   Now until 13 April – members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide feedback to legal teams;
2)   Now until 18 April, (with particular focus during week of 13-18 April) – legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with the Bylaws Drafting Group;
3)   20 April – posting date for public comment period for new proposed bylaws – with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets the proposal recommendations.
———
As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days, to get ICANN’s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these important changes.
We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them in the spirit that they are offered… to help all of us to be able to collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way possible — to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community empowered ICANN.
John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160403/b2c0d967/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ComparisonOfBylaws2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1557765 bytes
Desc: ComparisonOfBylaws2.pdf
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160403/b2c0d967/attachment.pdf>

From alissa at cooperw.in  Mon Apr 11 17:48:32 2016
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 10:48:32 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
Message-ID: <79AB2AAA-ECED-4A05-A437-16F100D664EE@cooperw.in>

I have looked a bit at the draft bylaws and I’d like to ask Kavouss and Milton to bring the following issue back to the bylaws drafting group:

Section 1.1(d)(ii) incorporates by reference a number of documents external to the bylaws as a means to prevent challenges on the basis that those documents conflict with or violate the bylaws. In particular, bullet (D) applies this provision to "the IANA Naming Function Contract between ICANN and PTI effective [October 1, 2016]." 

Given the ICG's historical encouragement of the community to meet timelines necessary for a successful transition, I find this provision to be extremely problematic. It incorporates a reference to a document that does not exist yet and that is unlikely to be completed by the time the bylaws are supposed to be done (early June). In fact, it is not even clear at this point whether the new ICANN affiliate to be setup will be name "PTI" or have some other name. I don't understand how anyone can reason about whether 1.1(d)(ii) is an acceptable bylaws provision if it references a document that has not been written. (This also applies to (B) and (C) since it could apply to future documents that haven’t been written yet.)

Furthermore, I question whether it is a sound decision to essentially allow for documents external to the bylaws to be able to modify the bylaws (under (F)). This section would make more sense if it was entirely internally specified, without the references to external documents. At a minimum, I think we should recommend that (D) be removed.

Thanks,
Alissa

From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Mon Apr 11 17:55:52 2016
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff)
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:55:52 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
In-Reply-To: <79AB2AAA-ECED-4A05-A437-16F100D664EE@cooperw.in>
References: <79AB2AAA-ECED-4A05-A437-16F100D664EE@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <570BE528.9020305@oracle.com>

Apologies for not having had time to get into this at a detail level...  
I agree with Alissa's concern.  Incorporation by reference of a document 
who's terms are yet defined and which may not be drafted till after is 
at least unusual if not problematic...  The name of the entity is leas 
concerning, that can be accommodated, but the substantive terms of the 
document seem to be real the issue if they could impact the credibility 
of and ability to rely on the bylaws for some of the accountability 
functionality.

On 4/11/2016 1:48 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> I have looked a bit at the draft bylaws and I’d like to ask Kavouss and Milton to bring the following issue back to the bylaws drafting group:
>
> Section 1.1(d)(ii) incorporates by reference a number of documents external to the bylaws as a means to prevent challenges on the basis that those documents conflict with or violate the bylaws. In particular, bullet (D) applies this provision to "the IANA Naming Function Contract between ICANN and PTI effective [October 1, 2016]."
>
> Given the ICG's historical encouragement of the community to meet timelines necessary for a successful transition, I find this provision to be extremely problematic. It incorporates a reference to a document that does not exist yet and that is unlikely to be completed by the time the bylaws are supposed to be done (early June). In fact, it is not even clear at this point whether the new ICANN affiliate to be setup will be name "PTI" or have some other name. I don't understand how anyone can reason about whether 1.1(d)(ii) is an acceptable bylaws provision if it references a document that has not been written. (This also applies to (B) and (C) since it could apply to future documents that haven’t been written yet.)
>
> Furthermore, I question whether it is a sound decision to essentially allow for documents external to the bylaws to be able to modify the bylaws (under (F)). This section would make more sense if it was entirely internally specified, without the references to external documents. At a minimum, I think we should recommend that (D) be removed.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From jjs at dyalog.net  Mon Apr 11 19:28:40 2016
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:28:40 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
In-Reply-To: <570BE528.9020305@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <282805109.281.1460402919930.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>

I have the same concerns as Alissa and Joseph.
These parts need to be redrafted, and the attention of the Bylaws drafting group needs to be brought to bear on the faulty method which resulted in such provisions.
Thanks.
Jean-Jacques.







----- Mail original -----
De: "Joseph Alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
À: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Envoyé: Lundi 11 Avril 2016 19:55:52
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback

Apologies for not having had time to get into this at a detail level...  
I agree with Alissa's concern.  Incorporation by reference of a document 
who's terms are yet defined and which may not be drafted till after is 
at least unusual if not problematic...  The name of the entity is leas 
concerning, that can be accommodated, but the substantive terms of the 
document seem to be real the issue if they could impact the credibility 
of and ability to rely on the bylaws for some of the accountability 
functionality.

On 4/11/2016 1:48 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> I have looked a bit at the draft bylaws and I’d like to ask Kavouss and Milton to bring the following issue back to the bylaws drafting group:
>
> Section 1.1(d)(ii) incorporates by reference a number of documents external to the bylaws as a means to prevent challenges on the basis that those documents conflict with or violate the bylaws. In particular, bullet (D) applies this provision to "the IANA Naming Function Contract between ICANN and PTI effective [October 1, 2016]."
>
> Given the ICG's historical encouragement of the community to meet timelines necessary for a successful transition, I find this provision to be extremely problematic. It incorporates a reference to a document that does not exist yet and that is unlikely to be completed by the time the bylaws are supposed to be done (early June). In fact, it is not even clear at this point whether the new ICANN affiliate to be setup will be name "PTI" or have some other name. I don't understand how anyone can reason about whether 1.1(d)(ii) is an acceptable bylaws provision if it references a document that has not been written. (This also applies to (B) and (C) since it could apply to future documents that haven’t been written yet.)
>
> Furthermore, I question whether it is a sound decision to essentially allow for documents external to the bylaws to be able to modify the bylaws (under (F)). This section would make more sense if it was entirely internally specified, without the references to external documents. At a minimum, I think we should recommend that (D) be removed.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


From Lynn at Internet-Matters.com  Mon Apr 11 19:36:27 2016
From: Lynn at Internet-Matters.com (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 15:36:27 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
In-Reply-To: <570BE528.9020305@oracle.com>
References: <79AB2AAA-ECED-4A05-A437-16F100D664EE@cooperw.in>
	<570BE528.9020305@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <89E9A082-9D40-4050-A2EE-A9090A8F5DDD@Internet-Matters.com>

Hi Alissa, Joe,

I share your concerns and support bringing this to the bylaws drafting group.

Best,
Lynn

> On Apr 11, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> Apologies for not having had time to get into this at a detail level...  I agree with Alissa's concern.  Incorporation by reference of a document who's terms are yet defined and which may not be drafted till after is at least unusual if not problematic...  The name of the entity is leas concerning, that can be accommodated, but the substantive terms of the document seem to be real the issue if they could impact the credibility of and ability to rely on the bylaws for some of the accountability functionality.
> 
> On 4/11/2016 1:48 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> I have looked a bit at the draft bylaws and I’d like to ask Kavouss and Milton to bring the following issue back to the bylaws drafting group:
>> 
>> Section 1.1(d)(ii) incorporates by reference a number of documents external to the bylaws as a means to prevent challenges on the basis that those documents conflict with or violate the bylaws. In particular, bullet (D) applies this provision to "the IANA Naming Function Contract between ICANN and PTI effective [October 1, 2016]."
>> 
>> Given the ICG's historical encouragement of the community to meet timelines necessary for a successful transition, I find this provision to be extremely problematic. It incorporates a reference to a document that does not exist yet and that is unlikely to be completed by the time the bylaws are supposed to be done (early June). In fact, it is not even clear at this point whether the new ICANN affiliate to be setup will be name "PTI" or have some other name. I don't understand how anyone can reason about whether 1.1(d)(ii) is an acceptable bylaws provision if it references a document that has not been written. (This also applies to (B) and (C) since it could apply to future documents that haven’t been written yet.)
>> 
>> Furthermore, I question whether it is a sound decision to essentially allow for documents external to the bylaws to be able to modify the bylaws (under (F)). This section would make more sense if it was entirely internally specified, without the references to external documents. At a minimum, I think we should recommend that (D) be removed.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From milton at gatech.edu  Mon Apr 11 20:04:32 2016
From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:04:32 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
In-Reply-To: <79AB2AAA-ECED-4A05-A437-16F100D664EE@cooperw.in>
References: <79AB2AAA-ECED-4A05-A437-16F100D664EE@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <BY2PR07MB24083E6A7C9FD72960263DC9A1940@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

Alissa
If you don't mind I will just forward your message to the bylaws and CWG lists. 
If there is some other way you want me to do this, please let me know.

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:49 PM
> To: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
> 
> I have looked a bit at the draft bylaws and I’d like to ask Kavouss and Milton
> to bring the following issue back to the bylaws drafting group:
> 
> Section 1.1(d)(ii) incorporates by reference a number of documents external
> to the bylaws as a means to prevent challenges on the basis that those
> documents conflict with or violate the bylaws. In particular, bullet (D) applies
> this provision to "the IANA Naming Function Contract between ICANN and
> PTI effective [October 1, 2016]."
> 
> Given the ICG's historical encouragement of the community to meet
> timelines necessary for a successful transition, I find this provision to be
> extremely problematic. It incorporates a reference to a document that does
> not exist yet and that is unlikely to be completed by the time the bylaws are
> supposed to be done (early June). In fact, it is not even clear at this point
> whether the new ICANN affiliate to be setup will be name "PTI" or have
> some other name. I don't understand how anyone can reason about
> whether 1.1(d)(ii) is an acceptable bylaws provision if it references a
> document that has not been written. (This also applies to (B) and (C) since it
> could apply to future documents that haven’t been written yet.)
> 
> Furthermore, I question whether it is a sound decision to essentially allow for
> documents external to the bylaws to be able to modify the bylaws (under
> (F)). This section would make more sense if it was entirely internally
> specified, without the references to external documents. At a minimum, I
> think we should recommend that (D) be removed.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

From alissa at cooperw.in  Mon Apr 11 20:54:28 2016
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:54:28 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR07MB24083E6A7C9FD72960263DC9A1940@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <79AB2AAA-ECED-4A05-A437-16F100D664EE@cooperw.in>
	<BY2PR07MB24083E6A7C9FD72960263DC9A1940@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <E0CCF362-49CB-4EDA-AAAC-3874D4E0C36C@cooperw.in>

I think that would be fine.

Thanks,
Alissa

> On Apr 11, 2016, at 1:04 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> Alissa
> If you don't mind I will just forward your message to the bylaws and CWG lists. 
> If there is some other way you want me to do this, please let me know.
> 
> --MM
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
>> Alissa Cooper
>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:49 PM
>> To: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>> 
>> I have looked a bit at the draft bylaws and I’d like to ask Kavouss and Milton
>> to bring the following issue back to the bylaws drafting group:
>> 
>> Section 1.1(d)(ii) incorporates by reference a number of documents external
>> to the bylaws as a means to prevent challenges on the basis that those
>> documents conflict with or violate the bylaws. In particular, bullet (D) applies
>> this provision to "the IANA Naming Function Contract between ICANN and
>> PTI effective [October 1, 2016]."
>> 
>> Given the ICG's historical encouragement of the community to meet
>> timelines necessary for a successful transition, I find this provision to be
>> extremely problematic. It incorporates a reference to a document that does
>> not exist yet and that is unlikely to be completed by the time the bylaws are
>> supposed to be done (early June). In fact, it is not even clear at this point
>> whether the new ICANN affiliate to be setup will be name "PTI" or have
>> some other name. I don't understand how anyone can reason about
>> whether 1.1(d)(ii) is an acceptable bylaws provision if it references a
>> document that has not been written. (This also applies to (B) and (C) since it
>> could apply to future documents that haven’t been written yet.)
>> 
>> Furthermore, I question whether it is a sound decision to essentially allow for
>> documents external to the bylaws to be able to modify the bylaws (under
>> (F)). This section would make more sense if it was entirely internally
>> specified, without the references to external documents. At a minimum, I
>> think we should recommend that (D) be removed.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From milton at gatech.edu  Tue Apr 12 15:39:54 2016
From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:39:54 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
In-Reply-To: <E0CCF362-49CB-4EDA-AAAC-3874D4E0C36C@cooperw.in>
References: <79AB2AAA-ECED-4A05-A437-16F100D664EE@cooperw.in>
	<BY2PR07MB24083E6A7C9FD72960263DC9A1940@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<E0CCF362-49CB-4EDA-AAAC-3874D4E0C36C@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <BY2PR07MB240866EA6A221BE8410FC309A1950@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

I sent it yesterday but there has been no response at all. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:54 PM
> To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> Cc: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
> 
> I think that would be fine.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> > On Apr 11, 2016, at 1:04 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > Alissa
> > If you don't mind I will just forward your message to the bylaws and CWG
> lists.
> > If there is some other way you want me to do this, please let me know.
> >
> > --MM
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf
> >> Of Alissa Cooper
> >> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:49 PM
> >> To: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> >> Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
> >>
> >> I have looked a bit at the draft bylaws and I’d like to ask Kavouss
> >> and Milton to bring the following issue back to the bylaws drafting group:
> >>
> >> Section 1.1(d)(ii) incorporates by reference a number of documents
> >> external to the bylaws as a means to prevent challenges on the basis
> >> that those documents conflict with or violate the bylaws. In
> >> particular, bullet (D) applies this provision to "the IANA Naming
> >> Function Contract between ICANN and PTI effective [October 1, 2016]."
> >>
> >> Given the ICG's historical encouragement of the community to meet
> >> timelines necessary for a successful transition, I find this
> >> provision to be extremely problematic. It incorporates a reference to
> >> a document that does not exist yet and that is unlikely to be
> >> completed by the time the bylaws are supposed to be done (early
> >> June). In fact, it is not even clear at this point whether the new
> >> ICANN affiliate to be setup will be name "PTI" or have some other
> >> name. I don't understand how anyone can reason about whether
> >> 1.1(d)(ii) is an acceptable bylaws provision if it references a
> >> document that has not been written. (This also applies to (B) and (C)
> >> since it could apply to future documents that haven’t been written
> >> yet.)
> >>
> >> Furthermore, I question whether it is a sound decision to essentially
> >> allow for documents external to the bylaws to be able to modify the
> >> bylaws (under (F)). This section would make more sense if it was
> >> entirely internally specified, without the references to external
> >> documents. At a minimum, I think we should recommend that (D) be
> removed.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Alissa
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Internal-cg mailing list
> >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


From alissa at cooperw.in  Tue Apr 12 19:15:28 2016
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:15:28 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR07MB240866EA6A221BE8410FC309A1950@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <79AB2AAA-ECED-4A05-A437-16F100D664EE@cooperw.in>
	<BY2PR07MB24083E6A7C9FD72960263DC9A1940@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<E0CCF362-49CB-4EDA-AAAC-3874D4E0C36C@cooperw.in>
	<BY2PR07MB240866EA6A221BE8410FC309A1950@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <6170505D-57EB-4017-A9B6-68D37E9EF4EF@cooperw.in>

From the minutes it looks like this was discussed on the CCWG call and there will be follow-up.

> On Apr 12, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> I sent it yesterday but there has been no response at all. 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:54 PM
>> To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>> Cc: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>> 
>> I think that would be fine.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>> 
>>> On Apr 11, 2016, at 1:04 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Alissa
>>> If you don't mind I will just forward your message to the bylaws and CWG
>> lists.
>>> If there is some other way you want me to do this, please let me know.
>>> 
>>> --MM
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf
>>>> Of Alissa Cooper
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:49 PM
>>>> To: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>> 
>>>> I have looked a bit at the draft bylaws and I’d like to ask Kavouss
>>>> and Milton to bring the following issue back to the bylaws drafting group:
>>>> 
>>>> Section 1.1(d)(ii) incorporates by reference a number of documents
>>>> external to the bylaws as a means to prevent challenges on the basis
>>>> that those documents conflict with or violate the bylaws. In
>>>> particular, bullet (D) applies this provision to "the IANA Naming
>>>> Function Contract between ICANN and PTI effective [October 1, 2016]."
>>>> 
>>>> Given the ICG's historical encouragement of the community to meet
>>>> timelines necessary for a successful transition, I find this
>>>> provision to be extremely problematic. It incorporates a reference to
>>>> a document that does not exist yet and that is unlikely to be
>>>> completed by the time the bylaws are supposed to be done (early
>>>> June). In fact, it is not even clear at this point whether the new
>>>> ICANN affiliate to be setup will be name "PTI" or have some other
>>>> name. I don't understand how anyone can reason about whether
>>>> 1.1(d)(ii) is an acceptable bylaws provision if it references a
>>>> document that has not been written. (This also applies to (B) and (C)
>>>> since it could apply to future documents that haven’t been written
>>>> yet.)
>>>> 
>>>> Furthermore, I question whether it is a sound decision to essentially
>>>> allow for documents external to the bylaws to be able to modify the
>>>> bylaws (under (F)). This section would make more sense if it was
>>>> entirely internally specified, without the references to external
>>>> documents. At a minimum, I think we should recommend that (D) be
>> removed.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alissa
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 



From alissa at cooperw.in  Thu Apr 14 17:09:33 2016
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:09:33 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions for the record
Message-ID: <CE390288-7291-4F41-8F8D-7BE22BB34FD7@cooperw.in>

Hi all,

As part of the follow-up to the Congressional hearing about the IANA transition that occurred on March 17, I have received some questions for the record from two members of Congress (PDF attached). My answers to these are due next week and will become part of the official Congressional record on this issue. Before sending the answers I wanted to share them with you all (Word document attached). If you have any feedback, please send it to the list by April 18 at 23:59 UTC.

Thanks,
Alissa

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Answers to Questions for the Record v2.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 158158 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160414/23b1e488/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Cooper QFRs.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 746980 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160414/23b1e488/attachment.pdf>

From housley at vigilsec.com  Thu Apr 14 17:30:04 2016
From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:30:04 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions for the record
In-Reply-To: <CE390288-7291-4F41-8F8D-7BE22BB34FD7@cooperw.in>
References: <CE390288-7291-4F41-8F8D-7BE22BB34FD7@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <D08D500E-F819-4814-9B2B-344AB09AB659@vigilsec.com>

Alissa:

Thanks for putting this together.  It looks good to me.  I have a very minor editorial suggestion.

On the last page, you say:

> It is not correct to conclude that those involved in the global Internet community are not accountable.

I suggest that you state this more positively.  Perhaps:

> Those involved in the global Internet community are accountable to the multistakeholder community.

Russ



On Apr 14, 2016, at 1:09 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> As part of the follow-up to the Congressional hearing about the IANA transition that occurred on March 17, I have received some questions for the record from two members of Congress (PDF attached). My answers to these are due next week and will become part of the official Congressional record on this issue. Before sending the answers I wanted to share them with you all (Word document attached). If you have any feedback, please send it to the list by April 18 at 23:59 UTC.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> 


From jbladel at godaddy.com  Thu Apr 14 18:19:03 2016
From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 18:19:03 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions for the record
In-Reply-To: <D08D500E-F819-4814-9B2B-344AB09AB659@vigilsec.com>
References: <CE390288-7291-4F41-8F8D-7BE22BB34FD7@cooperw.in>
	<D08D500E-F819-4814-9B2B-344AB09AB659@vigilsec.com>
Message-ID: <D335490F.BA058%jbladel@godaddy.com>

Agree with Russ and have no other comments, except to say I thought your
response to Rep. Ellmer¹s 2nd and 3rd questions were excellent.

Thanks‹

J.


On 4/14/16, 12:30 , "Internal-cg on behalf of Russ Housley"
<internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org on behalf of housley at vigilsec.com> wrote:

>Alissa:
>
>Thanks for putting this together.  It looks good to me.  I have a very
>minor editorial suggestion.
>
>On the last page, you say:
>
>> It is not correct to conclude that those involved in the global
>>Internet community are not accountable.
>
>I suggest that you state this more positively.  Perhaps:
>
>> Those involved in the global Internet community are accountable to the
>>multistakeholder community.
>
>Russ
>
>
>
>On Apr 14, 2016, at 1:09 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> As part of the follow-up to the Congressional hearing about the IANA
>>transition that occurred on March 17, I have received some questions for
>>the record from two members of Congress (PDF attached). My answers to
>>these are due next week and will become part of the official
>>Congressional record on this issue. Before sending the answers I wanted
>>to share them with you all (Word document attached). If you have any
>>feedback, please send it to the list by April 18 at 23:59 UTC.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>> 
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Internal-cg mailing list
>Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Thu Apr 14 20:52:46 2016
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 22:52:46 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions for the record
In-Reply-To: <D335490F.BA058%jbladel@godaddy.com>
References: <CE390288-7291-4F41-8F8D-7BE22BB34FD7@cooperw.in>
	<D08D500E-F819-4814-9B2B-344AB09AB659@vigilsec.com>
	<D335490F.BA058%jbladel@godaddy.com>
Message-ID: <CACNR4-L1hSYWPfWYWK5ZZ2zRoztaO+x+a7yMTjZqF9EyCCKSXg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Alisa,
Thank you very much sharing the case with us.
Even though most , if not all ,questions relate to CCWG Accountability and
should have been addressed to other people, but the answers you have
provided are  diplomatic , relevant and appropriate.
I suggest that we do not get into any editing which may compromise the very
balanced drafted.reply
Having been involved in the matter for more than 20 Mobnth,I have no
problem with any of them
Regards
Kavouss

2016-04-14 20:19 GMT+02:00 James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>:

> Agree with Russ and have no other comments, except to say I thought your
> response to Rep. Ellmer¹s 2nd and 3rd questions were excellent.
>
> Thanks‹
>
> J.
>
>
> On 4/14/16, 12:30 , "Internal-cg on behalf of Russ Housley"
> <internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org on behalf of housley at vigilsec.com> wrote:
>
> >Alissa:
> >
> >Thanks for putting this together.  It looks good to me.  I have a very
> >minor editorial suggestion.
> >
> >On the last page, you say:
> >
> >> It is not correct to conclude that those involved in the global
> >>Internet community are not accountable.
> >
> >I suggest that you state this more positively.  Perhaps:
> >
> >> Those involved in the global Internet community are accountable to the
> >>multistakeholder community.
> >
> >Russ
> >
> >
> >
> >On Apr 14, 2016, at 1:09 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> As part of the follow-up to the Congressional hearing about the IANA
> >>transition that occurred on March 17, I have received some questions for
> >>the record from two members of Congress (PDF attached). My answers to
> >>these are due next week and will become part of the official
> >>Congressional record on this issue. Before sending the answers I wanted
> >>to share them with you all (Word document attached). If you have any
> >>feedback, please send it to the list by April 18 at 23:59 UTC.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Alissa
> >>
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Internal-cg mailing list
> >Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> >http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160414/b3fe7e15/attachment.html>

From jjs at dyalog.net  Fri Apr 15 08:00:07 2016
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:00:07 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions for the record
In-Reply-To: <CACNR4-L1hSYWPfWYWK5ZZ2zRoztaO+x+a7yMTjZqF9EyCCKSXg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1705174190.129.1460707205849.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>

I agree with Russ, James and Kavouss.
Thank you Alissa for a good set of responses.
Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.







----- Mail original -----
De: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
À: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
Cc: "ICG Group" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Envoyé: Jeudi 14 Avril 2016 22:52:46
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions for the record




Dear Alisa, 
Thank you very much sharing the case with us. 
Even though most , if not all ,questions relate to CCWG Accountability and should have been addressed to other people, but the answers you have provided are diplomatic , relevant and appropriate. 
I suggest that we do not get into any editing which may compromise the very balanced drafted.reply 
Having been involved in the matter for more than 20 Mobnth,I have no problem with any of them 
Regards 
Kavouss 


2016-04-14 20:19 GMT+02:00 James M. Bladel < jbladel at godaddy.com > : 


Agree with Russ and have no other comments, except to say I thought your 
response to Rep. Ellmer¹s 2nd and 3rd questions were excellent. 

Thanks‹ 

J. 


On 4/14/16, 12:30 , "Internal-cg on behalf of Russ Housley" 


< internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org on behalf of housley at vigilsec.com > wrote: 

>Alissa: 
> 
>Thanks for putting this together. It looks good to me. I have a very 
>minor editorial suggestion. 
> 
>On the last page, you say: 
> 
>> It is not correct to conclude that those involved in the global 
>>Internet community are not accountable. 
> 
>I suggest that you state this more positively. Perhaps: 
> 
>> Those involved in the global Internet community are accountable to the 
>>multistakeholder community. 
> 
>Russ 
> 
> 
> 
>On Apr 14, 2016, at 1:09 PM, Alissa Cooper < alissa at cooperw.in > wrote: 
> 
>> Hi all, 
>> 
>> As part of the follow-up to the Congressional hearing about the IANA 
>>transition that occurred on March 17, I have received some questions for 
>>the record from two members of Congress (PDF attached). My answers to 
>>these are due next week and will become part of the official 
>>Congressional record on this issue. Before sending the answers I wanted 
>>to share them with you all (Word document attached). If you have any 
>>feedback, please send it to the list by April 18 at 23:59 UTC. 
>> 
>> Thanks, 
>> Alissa 
>> 
>> 
> 
>_______________________________________________ 
>Internal-cg mailing list 
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org 
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org 


_______________________________________________ 
Internal-cg mailing list 
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org 
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org 


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


From manal at tra.gov.eg  Sun Apr 17 12:24:59 2016
From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail)
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 12:24:59 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions for the record
In-Reply-To: <1705174190.129.1460707205849.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
References: <CACNR4-L1hSYWPfWYWK5ZZ2zRoztaO+x+a7yMTjZqF9EyCCKSXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1705174190.129.1460707205849.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
Message-ID: <36d5bec5508844c890dcfae001f09424@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG>

All sounds very good to me as well ..
I also like Russ' suggestion 
Many thanks Alissa !!

Kind Regards
--Manal
-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 10:00 AM
To: Kavouss Arasteh
Cc: ICG Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions for the record

I agree with Russ, James and Kavouss.
Thank you Alissa for a good set of responses.
Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.







----- Mail original -----
De: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
À: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
Cc: "ICG Group" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Envoyé: Jeudi 14 Avril 2016 22:52:46
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions for the record




Dear Alisa,
Thank you very much sharing the case with us. 
Even though most , if not all ,questions relate to CCWG Accountability and should have been addressed to other people, but the answers you have provided are diplomatic , relevant and appropriate. 
I suggest that we do not get into any editing which may compromise the very balanced drafted.reply Having been involved in the matter for more than 20 Mobnth,I have no problem with any of them Regards Kavouss 


2016-04-14 20:19 GMT+02:00 James M. Bladel < jbladel at godaddy.com > : 


Agree with Russ and have no other comments, except to say I thought your response to Rep. Ellmer¹s 2nd and 3rd questions were excellent. 

Thanks‹ 

J. 


On 4/14/16, 12:30 , "Internal-cg on behalf of Russ Housley" 


< internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org on behalf of housley at vigilsec.com > wrote: 

>Alissa: 
> 
>Thanks for putting this together. It looks good to me. I have a very 
>minor editorial suggestion.
> 
>On the last page, you say: 
> 
>> It is not correct to conclude that those involved in the global 
>>Internet community are not accountable.
> 
>I suggest that you state this more positively. Perhaps: 
> 
>> Those involved in the global Internet community are accountable to 
>>the multistakeholder community.
> 
>Russ
> 
> 
> 
>On Apr 14, 2016, at 1:09 PM, Alissa Cooper < alissa at cooperw.in > wrote: 
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> As part of the follow-up to the Congressional hearing about the IANA 
>>transition that occurred on March 17, I have received some questions 
>>for the record from two members of Congress (PDF attached). My answers 
>>to these are due next week and will become part of the official 
>>Congressional record on this issue. Before sending the answers I 
>>wanted to share them with you all (Word document attached). If you 
>>have any feedback, please send it to the list by April 18 at 23:59 UTC.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>> 
>> 
> 
>_______________________________________________
>Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org 


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

From mundy at tislabs.com  Mon Apr 18 15:09:42 2016
From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy)
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:09:42 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions for the record
In-Reply-To: <36d5bec5508844c890dcfae001f09424@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG>
References: <CACNR4-L1hSYWPfWYWK5ZZ2zRoztaO+x+a7yMTjZqF9EyCCKSXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1705174190.129.1460707205849.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
	<36d5bec5508844c890dcfae001f09424@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG>
Message-ID: <B96B3F12-38AC-4692-BD3B-AA353AC55971@tislabs.com>

Alissa,

I agree with what others have said, these are excellent responses to the questions - also agree that it would be good to make the ‘shift to positive’ suggested by RussH.

RussM

On Apr 17, 2016, at 8:24 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> All sounds very good to me as well ..
> I also like Russ' suggestion 
> Many thanks Alissa !!
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 10:00 AM
> To: Kavouss Arasteh
> Cc: ICG Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions for the record
> 
> I agree with Russ, James and Kavouss.
> Thank you Alissa for a good set of responses.
> Best regards,
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> À: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> Cc: "ICG Group" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Envoyé: Jeudi 14 Avril 2016 22:52:46
> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions for the record
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Alisa,
> Thank you very much sharing the case with us. 
> Even though most , if not all ,questions relate to CCWG Accountability and should have been addressed to other people, but the answers you have provided are diplomatic , relevant and appropriate. 
> I suggest that we do not get into any editing which may compromise the very balanced drafted.reply Having been involved in the matter for more than 20 Mobnth,I have no problem with any of them Regards Kavouss 
> 
> 
> 2016-04-14 20:19 GMT+02:00 James M. Bladel < jbladel at godaddy.com > : 
> 
> 
> Agree with Russ and have no other comments, except to say I thought your response to Rep. Ellmer¹s 2nd and 3rd questions were excellent. 
> 
> Thanks‹ 
> 
> J. 
> 
> 
> On 4/14/16, 12:30 , "Internal-cg on behalf of Russ Housley" 
> 
> 
> < internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org on behalf of housley at vigilsec.com > wrote: 
> 
>> Alissa: 
>> 
>> Thanks for putting this together. It looks good to me. I have a very 
>> minor editorial suggestion.
>> 
>> On the last page, you say: 
>> 
>>> It is not correct to conclude that those involved in the global 
>>> Internet community are not accountable.
>> 
>> I suggest that you state this more positively. Perhaps: 
>> 
>>> Those involved in the global Internet community are accountable to 
>>> the multistakeholder community.
>> 
>> Russ
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 14, 2016, at 1:09 PM, Alissa Cooper < alissa at cooperw.in > wrote: 
>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> As part of the follow-up to the Congressional hearing about the IANA 
>>> transition that occurred on March 17, I have received some questions 
>>> for the record from two members of Congress (PDF attached). My answers 
>>> to these are due next week and will become part of the official 
>>> Congressional record on this issue. Before sending the answers I 
>>> wanted to share them with you all (Word document attached). If you 
>>> have any feedback, please send it to the list by April 18 at 23:59 UTC.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alissa
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From alissa at cooperw.in  Mon Apr 18 19:02:40 2016
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:02:40 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions for the record
In-Reply-To: <B96B3F12-38AC-4692-BD3B-AA353AC55971@tislabs.com>
References: <CACNR4-L1hSYWPfWYWK5ZZ2zRoztaO+x+a7yMTjZqF9EyCCKSXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1705174190.129.1460707205849.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>
	<36d5bec5508844c890dcfae001f09424@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG>
	<B96B3F12-38AC-4692-BD3B-AA353AC55971@tislabs.com>
Message-ID: <EA0510D9-A5F2-4910-8705-FE018DFCE1B5@cooperw.in>

Thanks all. I made the change suggested by Russ (tweaked slightly) as well as a few other changes inspired by some off-list suggestions from Milton and sent this to the committee.

Secretariat: please post a PDF version of this to our site under Documents.

Alissa

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Answers to Questions for the Record - Alissa Cooper.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 153780 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160418/7a3b5bbc/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------

> On Apr 18, 2016, at 8:09 AM, Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:
> 
> Alissa,
> 
> I agree with what others have said, these are excellent responses to the questions - also agree that it would be good to make the ‘shift to positive’ suggested by RussH.
> 
> RussM
> 
> On Apr 17, 2016, at 8:24 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
> 
>> All sounds very good to me as well ..
>> I also like Russ' suggestion 
>> Many thanks Alissa !!
>> 
>> Kind Regards
>> --Manal
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques
>> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 10:00 AM
>> To: Kavouss Arasteh
>> Cc: ICG Group
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions for the record
>> 
>> I agree with Russ, James and Kavouss.
>> Thank you Alissa for a good set of responses.
>> Best regards,
>> Jean-Jacques.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>> À: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
>> Cc: "ICG Group" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> Envoyé: Jeudi 14 Avril 2016 22:52:46
>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions for the record
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Alisa,
>> Thank you very much sharing the case with us. 
>> Even though most , if not all ,questions relate to CCWG Accountability and should have been addressed to other people, but the answers you have provided are diplomatic , relevant and appropriate. 
>> I suggest that we do not get into any editing which may compromise the very balanced drafted.reply Having been involved in the matter for more than 20 Mobnth,I have no problem with any of them Regards Kavouss 
>> 
>> 
>> 2016-04-14 20:19 GMT+02:00 James M. Bladel < jbladel at godaddy.com > : 
>> 
>> 
>> Agree with Russ and have no other comments, except to say I thought your response to Rep. Ellmer¹s 2nd and 3rd questions were excellent. 
>> 
>> Thanks‹ 
>> 
>> J. 
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/14/16, 12:30 , "Internal-cg on behalf of Russ Housley" 
>> 
>> 
>> < internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org on behalf of housley at vigilsec.com > wrote: 
>> 
>>> Alissa: 
>>> 
>>> Thanks for putting this together. It looks good to me. I have a very 
>>> minor editorial suggestion.
>>> 
>>> On the last page, you say: 
>>> 
>>>> It is not correct to conclude that those involved in the global 
>>>> Internet community are not accountable.
>>> 
>>> I suggest that you state this more positively. Perhaps: 
>>> 
>>>> Those involved in the global Internet community are accountable to 
>>>> the multistakeholder community.
>>> 
>>> Russ
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Apr 14, 2016, at 1:09 PM, Alissa Cooper < alissa at cooperw.in > wrote: 
>>> 
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> As part of the follow-up to the Congressional hearing about the IANA 
>>>> transition that occurred on March 17, I have received some questions 
>>>> for the record from two members of Congress (PDF attached). My answers 
>>>> to these are due next week and will become part of the official 
>>>> Congressional record on this issue. Before sending the answers I 
>>>> wanted to share them with you all (Word document attached). If you 
>>>> have any feedback, please send it to the list by April 18 at 23:59 UTC.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alissa
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 


From jen at icgsec.asia  Tue Apr 19 02:57:35 2016
From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung)
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 10:57:35 +0800
Subject: [Internal-cg] Questions for the record
In-Reply-To: <EA0510D9-A5F2-4910-8705-FE018DFCE1B5@cooperw.in>
References: <CACNR4-L1hSYWPfWYWK5ZZ2zRoztaO+x+a7yMTjZqF9EyCCKSXg@mail.gmail.com>	<1705174190.129.1460707205849.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>	<36d5bec5508844c890dcfae001f09424@ntra-mbx2.TRA.GOV.EG>	<B96B3F12-38AC-4692-BD3B-AA353AC55971@tislabs.com>
	<EA0510D9-A5F2-4910-8705-FE018DFCE1B5@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <024d01d199e7$3c66f310$b534d930$@icgsec.asia>

Dear All,

Per Alissa, you may now find pdf version of the document attached and on the
ICG website here:

Direct link to pdf:
https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/Alissa-Cooper-Answers-to-Question
s-for-the-Record.pdf 
Documents page: https://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-documents/ 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
Alissa Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 3:03 AM
To: Russ Mundy <mundy at tislabs.com>
Cc: ICG Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions for the record

Thanks all. I made the change suggested by Russ (tweaked slightly) as well
as a few other changes inspired by some off-list suggestions from Milton and
sent this to the committee.

Secretariat: please post a PDF version of this to our site under Documents.

Alissa

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Answers to Questions for the Record - Alissa Cooper.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 307347 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160419/ed06eb95/attachment.pdf>

From Lynn at LStAmour.org  Fri Apr 29 17:55:05 2016
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 13:55:05 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
In-Reply-To: <6170505D-57EB-4017-A9B6-68D37E9EF4EF@cooperw.in>
References: <79AB2AAA-ECED-4A05-A437-16F100D664EE@cooperw.in>
	<BY2PR07MB24083E6A7C9FD72960263DC9A1940@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<E0CCF362-49CB-4EDA-AAAC-3874D4E0C36C@cooperw.in>
	<BY2PR07MB240866EA6A221BE8410FC309A1950@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<6170505D-57EB-4017-A9B6-68D37E9EF4EF@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <5978117D-AD72-4C5B-80D2-24CAED51A922@LStAmour.org>

Hi Alissa, Milton, all,

I would like to come back to this subject.  Specifically, I would like to propose that the ICG send in a statement to the By-laws comment period.  

Alissa commented on a specific concern (see thread below) and I also believe the ICG should be concerned about the overreach in the draft bylaws.  

My main concerns are:

- the fact that these draft by-laws, through the grand-fathering provisions, allow external agreements to define ICANN's Mission which seems like a bad idea for many reasons.  Further, this contradicts the desires of the community (or is a run around the community - intentional or not) who worked hard to clarify and correctly state ICANN’s mission throughout the IANA Transition process (paragraphs 140-144 of the CCWG-Accountability proposal).   

- the ICG process was fashioned to ensure that the transition plans reflected the consensus of the Internet community.  And, it was to respect the roles and responsibilities of the OCs in defining their own transition plans.  The ICG and the CCWG reports define those wishes, and any changes to the bylaws were to be to implement those wishes, nothing more.  Yet provisions in sections 1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(D) are outside the scope of both the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability proposals, and so there has not been appropriate community involvement or review for those changes.   Note: these sections affect much of the Internet community, as they apply to agreements between ICANN and the ASO, NRO, IETF, Root Zone Maintainer, and PTI. 

For transparency: the IAB/IETF are also concerned about the overreach and are drafting their own comments, and as an IAB appointee to the ICG, I am part of that review as well.

If there is support for the ICG sending in a comment, I would be happy to work with Alissa and others to draft something for ICG review.

Regards,
Lynn


> On Apr 12, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
> From the minutes it looks like this was discussed on the CCWG call and there will be follow-up.
> 
>> On Apr 12, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> I sent it yesterday but there has been no response at all. 
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:54 PM
>>> To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>>> Cc: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>> 
>>> I think that would be fine.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alissa
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 11, 2016, at 1:04 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Alissa
>>>> If you don't mind I will just forward your message to the bylaws and CWG
>>> lists.
>>>> If there is some other way you want me to do this, please let me know.
>>>> 
>>>> --MM
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf
>>>>> Of Alissa Cooper
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:49 PM
>>>>> To: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have looked a bit at the draft bylaws and I’d like to ask Kavouss
>>>>> and Milton to bring the following issue back to the bylaws drafting group:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Section 1.1(d)(ii) incorporates by reference a number of documents
>>>>> external to the bylaws as a means to prevent challenges on the basis
>>>>> that those documents conflict with or violate the bylaws. In
>>>>> particular, bullet (D) applies this provision to "the IANA Naming
>>>>> Function Contract between ICANN and PTI effective [October 1, 2016]."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Given the ICG's historical encouragement of the community to meet
>>>>> timelines necessary for a successful transition, I find this
>>>>> provision to be extremely problematic. It incorporates a reference to
>>>>> a document that does not exist yet and that is unlikely to be
>>>>> completed by the time the bylaws are supposed to be done (early
>>>>> June). In fact, it is not even clear at this point whether the new
>>>>> ICANN affiliate to be setup will be name "PTI" or have some other
>>>>> name. I don't understand how anyone can reason about whether
>>>>> 1.1(d)(ii) is an acceptable bylaws provision if it references a
>>>>> document that has not been written. (This also applies to (B) and (C)
>>>>> since it could apply to future documents that haven’t been written
>>>>> yet.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Furthermore, I question whether it is a sound decision to essentially
>>>>> allow for documents external to the bylaws to be able to modify the
>>>>> bylaws (under (F)). This section would make more sense if it was
>>>>> entirely internally specified, without the references to external
>>>>> documents. At a minimum, I think we should recommend that (D) be
>>> removed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Alissa
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> 



From milton at gatech.edu  Fri Apr 29 18:17:45 2016
From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 18:17:45 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
In-Reply-To: <5978117D-AD72-4C5B-80D2-24CAED51A922@LStAmour.org>
References: <79AB2AAA-ECED-4A05-A437-16F100D664EE@cooperw.in>
	<BY2PR07MB24083E6A7C9FD72960263DC9A1940@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<E0CCF362-49CB-4EDA-AAAC-3874D4E0C36C@cooperw.in>
	<BY2PR07MB240866EA6A221BE8410FC309A1950@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<6170505D-57EB-4017-A9B6-68D37E9EF4EF@cooperw.in>
	<5978117D-AD72-4C5B-80D2-24CAED51A922@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <BY2PR07MB240806C2A4AFCF1C3EE3E0CFA1660@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

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.

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lynn St.Amour [mailto:Lynn at LStAmour.org]
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 1:55 PM
> To: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>; Mueller, Milton L
> <milton at gatech.edu>; IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-
> cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
> 
> Hi Alissa, Milton, all,
> 
> I would like to come back to this subject.  Specifically, I would like to propose
> that the ICG send in a statement to the By-laws comment period.
> 
> Alissa commented on a specific concern (see thread below) and I also believe
> the ICG should be concerned about the overreach in the draft bylaws.
> 
> My main concerns are:
> 
> - the fact that these draft by-laws, through the grand-fathering provisions,
> allow external agreements to define ICANN's Mission which seems like a bad
> idea for many reasons.  Further, this contradicts the desires of the community
> (or is a run around the community - intentional or not) who worked hard to
> clarify and correctly state ICANN’s mission throughout the IANA Transition
> process (paragraphs 140-144 of the CCWG-Accountability proposal).
> 
> - the ICG process was fashioned to ensure that the transition plans reflected
> the consensus of the Internet community.  And, it was to respect the roles and
> responsibilities of the OCs in defining their own transition plans.  The ICG and
> the CCWG reports define those wishes, and any changes to the bylaws were to
> be to implement those wishes, nothing more.  Yet provisions in sections
> 1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(D) are outside the scope of both the ICG and the CCWG-
> Accountability proposals, and so there has not been appropriate community
> involvement or review for those changes.   Note: these sections affect much
> of the Internet community, as they apply to agreements between ICANN and
> the ASO, NRO, IETF, Root Zone Maintainer, and PTI.
> 
> For transparency: the IAB/IETF are also concerned about the overreach and
> are drafting their own comments, and as an IAB appointee to the ICG, I am
> part of that review as well.
> 
> If there is support for the ICG sending in a comment, I would be happy to work
> with Alissa and others to draft something for ICG review.
> 
> Regards,
> Lynn
> 
> 
> > On Apr 12, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> >
> > From the minutes it looks like this was discussed on the CCWG call and there
> will be follow-up.
> >
> >> On Apr 12, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I sent it yesterday but there has been no response at all.
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
> >>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:54 PM
> >>> To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> >>> Cc: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
> >>>
> >>> I think that would be fine.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Alissa
> >>>
> >>>> On Apr 11, 2016, at 1:04 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Alissa
> >>>> If you don't mind I will just forward your message to the bylaws
> >>>> and CWG
> >>> lists.
> >>>> If there is some other way you want me to do this, please let me know.
> >>>>
> >>>> --MM
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On
> >>>>> Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> >>>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:49 PM
> >>>>> To: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> >>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have looked a bit at the draft bylaws and I’d like to ask
> >>>>> Kavouss and Milton to bring the following issue back to the bylaws
> drafting group:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Section 1.1(d)(ii) incorporates by reference a number of documents
> >>>>> external to the bylaws as a means to prevent challenges on the
> >>>>> basis that those documents conflict with or violate the bylaws. In
> >>>>> particular, bullet (D) applies this provision to "the IANA Naming
> >>>>> Function Contract between ICANN and PTI effective [October 1, 2016]."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Given the ICG's historical encouragement of the community to meet
> >>>>> timelines necessary for a successful transition, I find this
> >>>>> provision to be extremely problematic. It incorporates a reference
> >>>>> to a document that does not exist yet and that is unlikely to be
> >>>>> completed by the time the bylaws are supposed to be done (early
> >>>>> June). In fact, it is not even clear at this point whether the new
> >>>>> ICANN affiliate to be setup will be name "PTI" or have some other
> >>>>> name. I don't understand how anyone can reason about whether
> >>>>> 1.1(d)(ii) is an acceptable bylaws provision if it references a
> >>>>> document that has not been written. (This also applies to (B) and
> >>>>> (C) since it could apply to future documents that haven’t been
> >>>>> written
> >>>>> yet.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Furthermore, I question whether it is a sound decision to
> >>>>> essentially allow for documents external to the bylaws to be able
> >>>>> to modify the bylaws (under (F)). This section would make more
> >>>>> sense if it was entirely internally specified, without the
> >>>>> references to external documents. At a minimum, I think we should
> >>>>> recommend that (D) be
> >>> removed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Alissa
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
> >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> >>


From alissa at cooperw.in  Fri Apr 29 18:59:46 2016
From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper)
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 11:59:46 -0700
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR07MB240806C2A4AFCF1C3EE3E0CFA1660@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <79AB2AAA-ECED-4A05-A437-16F100D664EE@cooperw.in>
	<BY2PR07MB24083E6A7C9FD72960263DC9A1940@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<E0CCF362-49CB-4EDA-AAAC-3874D4E0C36C@cooperw.in>
	<BY2PR07MB240866EA6A221BE8410FC309A1950@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<6170505D-57EB-4017-A9B6-68D37E9EF4EF@cooperw.in>
	<5978117D-AD72-4C5B-80D2-24CAED51A922@LStAmour.org>
	<BY2PR07MB240806C2A4AFCF1C3EE3E0CFA1660@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <648952D9-5962-4E6D-8271-55AE178F9113@cooperw.in>

For folks following this issue, it is definitely worth reading the transcript or listening to the recording of the last CCWG call: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58730392 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58730392>

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.

I think there are substantive issues too, but from an ICG perspective we may or may not want to focus on those. 

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’t even occur until after the bylaws were put out for public comment.

Alissa


> On Apr 29, 2016, at 11:17 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> --MM
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lynn St.Amour [mailto:Lynn at LStAmour.org]
>> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 1:55 PM
>> To: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>; Mueller, Milton L
>> <milton at gatech.edu>; IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-
>> cg at ianacg.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>> 
>> Hi Alissa, Milton, all,
>> 
>> I would like to come back to this subject.  Specifically, I would like to propose
>> that the ICG send in a statement to the By-laws comment period.
>> 
>> Alissa commented on a specific concern (see thread below) and I also believe
>> the ICG should be concerned about the overreach in the draft bylaws.
>> 
>> My main concerns are:
>> 
>> - the fact that these draft by-laws, through the grand-fathering provisions,
>> allow external agreements to define ICANN's Mission which seems like a bad
>> idea for many reasons.  Further, this contradicts the desires of the community
>> (or is a run around the community - intentional or not) who worked hard to
>> clarify and correctly state ICANN’s mission throughout the IANA Transition
>> process (paragraphs 140-144 of the CCWG-Accountability proposal).
>> 
>> - the ICG process was fashioned to ensure that the transition plans reflected
>> the consensus of the Internet community.  And, it was to respect the roles and
>> responsibilities of the OCs in defining their own transition plans.  The ICG and
>> the CCWG reports define those wishes, and any changes to the bylaws were to
>> be to implement those wishes, nothing more.  Yet provisions in sections
>> 1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(D) are outside the scope of both the ICG and the CCWG-
>> Accountability proposals, and so there has not been appropriate community
>> involvement or review for those changes.   Note: these sections affect much
>> of the Internet community, as they apply to agreements between ICANN and
>> the ASO, NRO, IETF, Root Zone Maintainer, and PTI.
>> 
>> For transparency: the IAB/IETF are also concerned about the overreach and
>> are drafting their own comments, and as an IAB appointee to the ICG, I am
>> part of that review as well.
>> 
>> If there is support for the ICG sending in a comment, I would be happy to work
>> with Alissa and others to draft something for ICG review.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Lynn
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 12, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>>> 
>>> From the minutes it looks like this was discussed on the CCWG call and there
>> will be follow-up.
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 12, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I sent it yesterday but there has been no response at all.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:54 PM
>>>>> To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>>>>> Cc: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think that would be fine.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Alissa
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Apr 11, 2016, at 1:04 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>> If you don't mind I will just forward your message to the bylaws
>>>>>> and CWG
>>>>> lists.
>>>>>> If there is some other way you want me to do this, please let me know.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --MM
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On
>>>>>>> Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:49 PM
>>>>>>> To: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I have looked a bit at the draft bylaws and I’d like to ask
>>>>>>> Kavouss and Milton to bring the following issue back to the bylaws
>> drafting group:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Section 1.1(d)(ii) incorporates by reference a number of documents
>>>>>>> external to the bylaws as a means to prevent challenges on the
>>>>>>> basis that those documents conflict with or violate the bylaws. In
>>>>>>> particular, bullet (D) applies this provision to "the IANA Naming
>>>>>>> Function Contract between ICANN and PTI effective [October 1, 2016]."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Given the ICG's historical encouragement of the community to meet
>>>>>>> timelines necessary for a successful transition, I find this
>>>>>>> provision to be extremely problematic. It incorporates a reference
>>>>>>> to a document that does not exist yet and that is unlikely to be
>>>>>>> completed by the time the bylaws are supposed to be done (early
>>>>>>> June). In fact, it is not even clear at this point whether the new
>>>>>>> ICANN affiliate to be setup will be name "PTI" or have some other
>>>>>>> name. I don't understand how anyone can reason about whether
>>>>>>> 1.1(d)(ii) is an acceptable bylaws provision if it references a
>>>>>>> document that has not been written. (This also applies to (B) and
>>>>>>> (C) since it could apply to future documents that haven’t been
>>>>>>> written
>>>>>>> yet.)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Furthermore, I question whether it is a sound decision to
>>>>>>> essentially allow for documents external to the bylaws to be able
>>>>>>> to modify the bylaws (under (F)). This section would make more
>>>>>>> sense if it was entirely internally specified, without the
>>>>>>> references to external documents. At a minimum, I think we should
>>>>>>> recommend that (D) be
>>>>> removed.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160429/f956d4eb/attachment.html>

From housley at vigilsec.com  Fri Apr 29 21:37:25 2016
From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley)
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:37:25 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR07MB240806C2A4AFCF1C3EE3E0CFA1660@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <79AB2AAA-ECED-4A05-A437-16F100D664EE@cooperw.in>
	<BY2PR07MB24083E6A7C9FD72960263DC9A1940@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<E0CCF362-49CB-4EDA-AAAC-3874D4E0C36C@cooperw.in>
	<BY2PR07MB240866EA6A221BE8410FC309A1950@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<6170505D-57EB-4017-A9B6-68D37E9EF4EF@cooperw.in>
	<5978117D-AD72-4C5B-80D2-24CAED51A922@LStAmour.org>
	<BY2PR07MB240806C2A4AFCF1C3EE3E0CFA1660@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <D609726B-18F8-4B14-B216-11351B7699AF@vigilsec.com>

Milton:

I was not able to make that teleconference either, but I have read the document provided by the lawyers, and I find it an answer to the wrong question.  The lawyers say why it is okay to reference external documents in this situation.  The lawyers to not say why these references are need when neither the CWG-Stewardshop nor the CCWG-Accountability proposal calls for these documents to be beyond challenge.

Russ


On Apr 29, 2016, at 2:17 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

> 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.
> 
> --MM
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lynn St.Amour [mailto:Lynn at LStAmour.org]
>> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 1:55 PM
>> To: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>; Mueller, Milton L
>> <milton at gatech.edu>; IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-
>> cg at ianacg.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>> 
>> Hi Alissa, Milton, all,
>> 
>> I would like to come back to this subject.  Specifically, I would like to propose
>> that the ICG send in a statement to the By-laws comment period.
>> 
>> Alissa commented on a specific concern (see thread below) and I also believe
>> the ICG should be concerned about the overreach in the draft bylaws.
>> 
>> My main concerns are:
>> 
>> - the fact that these draft by-laws, through the grand-fathering provisions,
>> allow external agreements to define ICANN's Mission which seems like a bad
>> idea for many reasons.  Further, this contradicts the desires of the community
>> (or is a run around the community - intentional or not) who worked hard to
>> clarify and correctly state ICANN’s mission throughout the IANA Transition
>> process (paragraphs 140-144 of the CCWG-Accountability proposal).
>> 
>> - the ICG process was fashioned to ensure that the transition plans reflected
>> the consensus of the Internet community.  And, it was to respect the roles and
>> responsibilities of the OCs in defining their own transition plans.  The ICG and
>> the CCWG reports define those wishes, and any changes to the bylaws were to
>> be to implement those wishes, nothing more.  Yet provisions in sections
>> 1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(D) are outside the scope of both the ICG and the CCWG-
>> Accountability proposals, and so there has not been appropriate community
>> involvement or review for those changes.   Note: these sections affect much
>> of the Internet community, as they apply to agreements between ICANN and
>> the ASO, NRO, IETF, Root Zone Maintainer, and PTI.
>> 
>> For transparency: the IAB/IETF are also concerned about the overreach and
>> are drafting their own comments, and as an IAB appointee to the ICG, I am
>> part of that review as well.
>> 
>> If there is support for the ICG sending in a comment, I would be happy to work
>> with Alissa and others to draft something for ICG review.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Lynn
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 12, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>>> 
>>> From the minutes it looks like this was discussed on the CCWG call and there
>> will be follow-up.
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 12, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I sent it yesterday but there has been no response at all.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:54 PM
>>>>> To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>>>>> Cc: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think that would be fine.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Alissa
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Apr 11, 2016, at 1:04 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>> If you don't mind I will just forward your message to the bylaws
>>>>>> and CWG
>>>>> lists.
>>>>>> If there is some other way you want me to do this, please let me know.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --MM
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On
>>>>>>> Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:49 PM
>>>>>>> To: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I have looked a bit at the draft bylaws and I’d like to ask
>>>>>>> Kavouss and Milton to bring the following issue back to the bylaws
>> drafting group:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Section 1.1(d)(ii) incorporates by reference a number of documents
>>>>>>> external to the bylaws as a means to prevent challenges on the
>>>>>>> basis that those documents conflict with or violate the bylaws. In
>>>>>>> particular, bullet (D) applies this provision to "the IANA Naming
>>>>>>> Function Contract between ICANN and PTI effective [October 1, 2016]."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Given the ICG's historical encouragement of the community to meet
>>>>>>> timelines necessary for a successful transition, I find this
>>>>>>> provision to be extremely problematic. It incorporates a reference
>>>>>>> to a document that does not exist yet and that is unlikely to be
>>>>>>> completed by the time the bylaws are supposed to be done (early
>>>>>>> June). In fact, it is not even clear at this point whether the new
>>>>>>> ICANN affiliate to be setup will be name "PTI" or have some other
>>>>>>> name. I don't understand how anyone can reason about whether
>>>>>>> 1.1(d)(ii) is an acceptable bylaws provision if it references a
>>>>>>> document that has not been written. (This also applies to (B) and
>>>>>>> (C) since it could apply to future documents that haven’t been
>>>>>>> written
>>>>>>> yet.)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Furthermore, I question whether it is a sound decision to
>>>>>>> essentially allow for documents external to the bylaws to be able
>>>>>>> to modify the bylaws (under (F)). This section would make more
>>>>>>> sense if it was entirely internally specified, without the
>>>>>>> references to external documents. At a minimum, I think we should
>>>>>>> recommend that (D) be
>>>>> removed.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



From paf at frobbit.se  Sat Apr 30 06:26:21 2016
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 08:26:21 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
In-Reply-To: <5978117D-AD72-4C5B-80D2-24CAED51A922@LStAmour.org>
References: <79AB2AAA-ECED-4A05-A437-16F100D664EE@cooperw.in>
	<BY2PR07MB24083E6A7C9FD72960263DC9A1940@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<E0CCF362-49CB-4EDA-AAAC-3874D4E0C36C@cooperw.in>
	<BY2PR07MB240866EA6A221BE8410FC309A1950@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<6170505D-57EB-4017-A9B6-68D37E9EF4EF@cooperw.in>
	<5978117D-AD72-4C5B-80D2-24CAED51A922@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <E0ED0E9E-2249-4463-8CAA-66F9ED20F07F@frobbit.se>

FWIW, I personally would support such an initiative.

   Patrik

On 29 Apr 2016, at 19:55, Lynn St.Amour wrote:

> Hi Alissa, Milton, all,
>
> I would like to come back to this subject.  Specifically, I would like to propose that the ICG send in a statement to the By-laws comment period.
>
> Alissa commented on a specific concern (see thread below) and I also believe the ICG should be concerned about the overreach in the draft bylaws.
>
> My main concerns are:
>
> - the fact that these draft by-laws, through the grand-fathering provisions, allow external agreements to define ICANN's Mission which seems like a bad idea for many reasons.  Further, this contradicts the desires of the community (or is a run around the community - intentional or not) who worked hard to clarify and correctly state ICANN’s mission throughout the IANA Transition process (paragraphs 140-144 of the CCWG-Accountability proposal).
>
> - the ICG process was fashioned to ensure that the transition plans reflected the consensus of the Internet community.  And, it was to respect the roles and responsibilities of the OCs in defining their own transition plans.  The ICG and the CCWG reports define those wishes, and any changes to the bylaws were to be to implement those wishes, nothing more.  Yet provisions in sections 1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(D) are outside the scope of both the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability proposals, and so there has not been appropriate community involvement or review for those changes.   Note: these sections affect much of the Internet community, as they apply to agreements between ICANN and the ASO, NRO, IETF, Root Zone Maintainer, and PTI.
>
> For transparency: the IAB/IETF are also concerned about the overreach and are drafting their own comments, and as an IAB appointee to the ICG, I am part of that review as well.
>
> If there is support for the ICG sending in a comment, I would be happy to work with Alissa and others to draft something for ICG review.
>
> Regards,
> Lynn
>
>
>> On Apr 12, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>>
>> From the minutes it looks like this was discussed on the CCWG call and there will be follow-up.
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> I sent it yesterday but there has been no response at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:54 PM
>>>> To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>>>> Cc: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>>
>>>> I think that would be fine.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alissa
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 11, 2016, at 1:04 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Alissa
>>>>> If you don't mind I will just forward your message to the bylaws and CWG
>>>> lists.
>>>>> If there is some other way you want me to do this, please let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>> --MM
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf
>>>>>> Of Alissa Cooper
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:49 PM
>>>>>> To: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have looked a bit at the draft bylaws and I’d like to ask Kavouss
>>>>>> and Milton to bring the following issue back to the bylaws drafting group:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Section 1.1(d)(ii) incorporates by reference a number of documents
>>>>>> external to the bylaws as a means to prevent challenges on the basis
>>>>>> that those documents conflict with or violate the bylaws. In
>>>>>> particular, bullet (D) applies this provision to "the IANA Naming
>>>>>> Function Contract between ICANN and PTI effective [October 1, 2016]."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the ICG's historical encouragement of the community to meet
>>>>>> timelines necessary for a successful transition, I find this
>>>>>> provision to be extremely problematic. It incorporates a reference to
>>>>>> a document that does not exist yet and that is unlikely to be
>>>>>> completed by the time the bylaws are supposed to be done (early
>>>>>> June). In fact, it is not even clear at this point whether the new
>>>>>> ICANN affiliate to be setup will be name "PTI" or have some other
>>>>>> name. I don't understand how anyone can reason about whether
>>>>>> 1.1(d)(ii) is an acceptable bylaws provision if it references a
>>>>>> document that has not been written. (This also applies to (B) and (C)
>>>>>> since it could apply to future documents that haven’t been written
>>>>>> yet.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Furthermore, I question whether it is a sound decision to essentially
>>>>>> allow for documents external to the bylaws to be able to modify the
>>>>>> bylaws (under (F)). This section would make more sense if it was
>>>>>> entirely internally specified, without the references to external
>>>>>> documents. At a minimum, I think we should recommend that (D) be
>>>> removed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160430/4c270cd1/attachment.sig>

From jjs at dyalog.net  Sat Apr 30 06:49:36 2016
From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques)
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 08:49:36 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
In-Reply-To: <E0ED0E9E-2249-4463-8CAA-66F9ED20F07F@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <1903533218.408.1461998972552.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques-2.local>

Alissa,

I support the position you advocate: the ICG can/should send a statement. And I'm willing to work with you, Lynn and others on that.

Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.






----- Mail original -----
De: "Patrik Fältström" <paf at frobbit.se>
À: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at LStAmour.org>
Cc: "Milton L Mueller" <milton at gatech.edu>, "IANA etc etcCoordination Group" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Envoyé: Samedi 30 Avril 2016 08:26:21
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback

FWIW, I personally would support such an initiative.

   Patrik

On 29 Apr 2016, at 19:55, Lynn St.Amour wrote:

> Hi Alissa, Milton, all,
>
> I would like to come back to this subject.  Specifically, I would like to propose that the ICG send in a statement to the By-laws comment period.
>
> Alissa commented on a specific concern (see thread below) and I also believe the ICG should be concerned about the overreach in the draft bylaws.
>
> My main concerns are:
>
> - the fact that these draft by-laws, through the grand-fathering provisions, allow external agreements to define ICANN's Mission which seems like a bad idea for many reasons.  Further, this contradicts the desires of the community (or is a run around the community - intentional or not) who worked hard to clarify and correctly state ICANN’s mission throughout the IANA Transition process (paragraphs 140-144 of the CCWG-Accountability proposal).
>
> - the ICG process was fashioned to ensure that the transition plans reflected the consensus of the Internet community.  And, it was to respect the roles and responsibilities of the OCs in defining their own transition plans.  The ICG and the CCWG reports define those wishes, and any changes to the bylaws were to be to implement those wishes, nothing more.  Yet provisions in sections 1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(D) are outside the scope of both the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability proposals, and so there has not been appropriate community involvement or review for those changes.   Note: these sections affect much of the Internet community, as they apply to agreements between ICANN and the ASO, NRO, IETF, Root Zone Maintainer, and PTI.
>
> For transparency: the IAB/IETF are also concerned about the overreach and are drafting their own comments, and as an IAB appointee to the ICG, I am part of that review as well.
>
> If there is support for the ICG sending in a comment, I would be happy to work with Alissa and others to draft something for ICG review.
>
> Regards,
> Lynn
>
>
>> On Apr 12, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>>
>> From the minutes it looks like this was discussed on the CCWG call and there will be follow-up.
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> I sent it yesterday but there has been no response at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:54 PM
>>>> To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>>>> Cc: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>>
>>>> I think that would be fine.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alissa
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 11, 2016, at 1:04 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Alissa
>>>>> If you don't mind I will just forward your message to the bylaws and CWG
>>>> lists.
>>>>> If there is some other way you want me to do this, please let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>> --MM
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf
>>>>>> Of Alissa Cooper
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:49 PM
>>>>>> To: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have looked a bit at the draft bylaws and I’d like to ask Kavouss
>>>>>> and Milton to bring the following issue back to the bylaws drafting group:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Section 1.1(d)(ii) incorporates by reference a number of documents
>>>>>> external to the bylaws as a means to prevent challenges on the basis
>>>>>> that those documents conflict with or violate the bylaws. In
>>>>>> particular, bullet (D) applies this provision to "the IANA Naming
>>>>>> Function Contract between ICANN and PTI effective [October 1, 2016]."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the ICG's historical encouragement of the community to meet
>>>>>> timelines necessary for a successful transition, I find this
>>>>>> provision to be extremely problematic. It incorporates a reference to
>>>>>> a document that does not exist yet and that is unlikely to be
>>>>>> completed by the time the bylaws are supposed to be done (early
>>>>>> June). In fact, it is not even clear at this point whether the new
>>>>>> ICANN affiliate to be setup will be name "PTI" or have some other
>>>>>> name. I don't understand how anyone can reason about whether
>>>>>> 1.1(d)(ii) is an acceptable bylaws provision if it references a
>>>>>> document that has not been written. (This also applies to (B) and (C)
>>>>>> since it could apply to future documents that haven’t been written
>>>>>> yet.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Furthermore, I question whether it is a sound decision to essentially
>>>>>> allow for documents external to the bylaws to be able to modify the
>>>>>> bylaws (under (F)). This section would make more sense if it was
>>>>>> entirely internally specified, without the references to external
>>>>>> documents. At a minimum, I think we should recommend that (D) be
>>>> removed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com  Sat Apr 30 09:38:03 2016
From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph.alhadeff)
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 05:38:03 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
Message-ID: <0dkqxwvisx3vxxuy4d65oxff.1462009082976@email.android.com>


    
I am not opposed to the positions or the concerns, I am just not seeing a direct linkage to our specific transition work.  Can someone clarify the connection/dependency?


Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs at dyalog.net> 
Date: 4/30/2016  2:49 AM  (GMT-05:00) 
To: Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> 
Cc: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at LStAmour.org>, Milton L Mueller <milton at gatech.edu>, IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org> 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback 

Alissa,

I support the position you advocate: the ICG can/should send a statement. And I'm willing to work with you, Lynn and others on that.

Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.






----- Mail original -----
De: "Patrik Fältström" <paf at frobbit.se>
À: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at LStAmour.org>
Cc: "Milton L Mueller" <milton at gatech.edu>, "IANA etc etcCoordination Group" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Envoyé: Samedi 30 Avril 2016 08:26:21
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback

FWIW, I personally would support such an initiative.

   Patrik

On 29 Apr 2016, at 19:55, Lynn St.Amour wrote:

> Hi Alissa, Milton, all,
>
> I would like to come back to this subject.  Specifically, I would like to propose that the ICG send in a statement to the By-laws comment period.
>
> Alissa commented on a specific concern (see thread below) and I also believe the ICG should be concerned about the overreach in the draft bylaws.
>
> My main concerns are:
>
> - the fact that these draft by-laws, through the grand-fathering provisions, allow external agreements to define ICANN's Mission which seems like a bad idea for many reasons.  Further, this contradicts the desires of the community (or is a run around the community - intentional or not) who worked hard to clarify and correctly state ICANN’s mission throughout the IANA Transition process (paragraphs 140-144 of the CCWG-Accountability proposal).
>
> - the ICG process was fashioned to ensure that the transition plans reflected the consensus of the Internet community.  And, it was to respect the roles and responsibilities of the OCs in defining their own transition plans.  The ICG and the CCWG reports define those wishes, and any changes to the bylaws were to be to implement those wishes, nothing more.  Yet provisions in sections 1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(D) are outside the scope of both the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability proposals, and so there has not been appropriate community involvement or review for those changes.   Note: these sections affect much of the Internet community, as they apply to agreements between ICANN and the ASO, NRO, IETF, Root Zone Maintainer, and PTI.
>
> For transparency: the IAB/IETF are also concerned about the overreach and are drafting their own comments, and as an IAB appointee to the ICG, I am part of that review as well.
>
> If there is support for the ICG sending in a comment, I would be happy to work with Alissa and others to draft something for ICG review.
>
> Regards,
> Lynn
>
>
>> On Apr 12, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>>
>> From the minutes it looks like this was discussed on the CCWG call and there will be follow-up.
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> I sent it yesterday but there has been no response at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:54 PM
>>>> To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>>>> Cc: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>>
>>>> I think that would be fine.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alissa
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 11, 2016, at 1:04 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Alissa
>>>>> If you don't mind I will just forward your message to the bylaws and CWG
>>>> lists.
>>>>> If there is some other way you want me to do this, please let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>> --MM
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf
>>>>>> Of Alissa Cooper
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:49 PM
>>>>>> To: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have looked a bit at the draft bylaws and I’d like to ask Kavouss
>>>>>> and Milton to bring the following issue back to the bylaws drafting group:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Section 1.1(d)(ii) incorporates by reference a number of documents
>>>>>> external to the bylaws as a means to prevent challenges on the basis
>>>>>> that those documents conflict with or violate the bylaws. In
>>>>>> particular, bullet (D) applies this provision to "the IANA Naming
>>>>>> Function Contract between ICANN and PTI effective [October 1, 2016]."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the ICG's historical encouragement of the community to meet
>>>>>> timelines necessary for a successful transition, I find this
>>>>>> provision to be extremely problematic. It incorporates a reference to
>>>>>> a document that does not exist yet and that is unlikely to be
>>>>>> completed by the time the bylaws are supposed to be done (early
>>>>>> June). In fact, it is not even clear at this point whether the new
>>>>>> ICANN affiliate to be setup will be name "PTI" or have some other
>>>>>> name. I don't understand how anyone can reason about whether
>>>>>> 1.1(d)(ii) is an acceptable bylaws provision if it references a
>>>>>> document that has not been written. (This also applies to (B) and (C)
>>>>>> since it could apply to future documents that haven’t been written
>>>>>> yet.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Furthermore, I question whether it is a sound decision to essentially
>>>>>> allow for documents external to the bylaws to be able to modify the
>>>>>> bylaws (under (F)). This section would make more sense if it was
>>>>>> entirely internally specified, without the references to external
>>>>>> documents. At a minimum, I think we should recommend that (D) be
>>>> removed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160430/cfca7b9f/attachment.html>

From paf at frobbit.se  Sat Apr 30 12:01:30 2016
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 14:01:30 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
In-Reply-To: <0dkqxwvisx3vxxuy4d65oxff.1462009082976@email.android.com>
References: <0dkqxwvisx3vxxuy4d65oxff.1462009082976@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <F046F249-4D67-4B43-A736-DF85A60F7B66@frobbit.se>

On 30 Apr 2016, at 11:38, joseph.alhadeff wrote:

> I am not opposed to the positions or the concerns, I am just not seeing a direct linkage to our specific transition work.  Can someone clarify the connection/dependency?

What I see is that the implementation work is not doing what is in the documents produced, but something else. As if the design process did not stop when ICG/CCWG documents where done.

   Patrik

> Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs at dyalog.net>
> Date: 4/30/2016  2:49 AM  (GMT-05:00)
> To: Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>
> Cc: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at LStAmour.org>, Milton L Mueller <milton at gatech.edu>, IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>
> Alissa,
>
> I support the position you advocate: the ICG can/should send a statement. And I'm willing to work with you, Lynn and others on that.
>
> Best regards,
> Jean-Jacques.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Patrik Fältström" <paf at frobbit.se>
> À: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at LStAmour.org>
> Cc: "Milton L Mueller" <milton at gatech.edu>, "IANA etc etcCoordination Group" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Envoyé: Samedi 30 Avril 2016 08:26:21
> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>
> FWIW, I personally would support such an initiative.
>
>    Patrik
>
> On 29 Apr 2016, at 19:55, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
>
>> Hi Alissa, Milton, all,
>>
>> I would like to come back to this subject.  Specifically, I would like to propose that the ICG send in a statement to the By-laws comment period.
>>
>> Alissa commented on a specific concern (see thread below) and I also believe the ICG should be concerned about the overreach in the draft bylaws.
>>
>> My main concerns are:
>>
>> - the fact that these draft by-laws, through the grand-fathering provisions, allow external agreements to define ICANN's Mission which seems like a bad idea for many reasons.  Further, this contradicts the desires of the community (or is a run around the community - intentional or not) who worked hard to clarify and correctly state ICANN’s mission throughout the IANA Transition process (paragraphs 140-144 of the CCWG-Accountability proposal).
>>
>> - the ICG process was fashioned to ensure that the transition plans reflected the consensus of the Internet community.  And, it was to respect the roles and responsibilities of the OCs in defining their own transition plans.  The ICG and the CCWG reports define those wishes, and any changes to the bylaws were to be to implement those wishes, nothing more.  Yet provisions in sections 1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(D) are outside the scope of both the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability proposals, and so there has not been appropriate community involvement or review for those changes.   Note: these sections affect much of the Internet community, as they apply to agreements between ICANN and the ASO, NRO, IETF, Root Zone Maintainer, and PTI.
>>
>> For transparency: the IAB/IETF are also concerned about the overreach and are drafting their own comments, and as an IAB appointee to the ICG, I am part of that review as well.
>>
>> If there is support for the ICG sending in a comment, I would be happy to work with Alissa and others to draft something for ICG review.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Lynn
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>>>
>>> From the minutes it looks like this was discussed on the CCWG call and there will be follow-up.
>>>
>>>> On Apr 12, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I sent it yesterday but there has been no response at all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:54 PM
>>>>> To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>>>>> Cc: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that would be fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 11, 2016, at 1:04 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>> If you don't mind I will just forward your message to the bylaws and CWG
>>>>> lists.
>>>>>> If there is some other way you want me to do this, please let me know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --MM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf
>>>>>>> Of Alissa Cooper
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:49 PM
>>>>>>> To: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have looked a bit at the draft bylaws and I’d like to ask Kavouss
>>>>>>> and Milton to bring the following issue back to the bylaws drafting group:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Section 1.1(d)(ii) incorporates by reference a number of documents
>>>>>>> external to the bylaws as a means to prevent challenges on the basis
>>>>>>> that those documents conflict with or violate the bylaws. In
>>>>>>> particular, bullet (D) applies this provision to "the IANA Naming
>>>>>>> Function Contract between ICANN and PTI effective [October 1, 2016]."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given the ICG's historical encouragement of the community to meet
>>>>>>> timelines necessary for a successful transition, I find this
>>>>>>> provision to be extremely problematic. It incorporates a reference to
>>>>>>> a document that does not exist yet and that is unlikely to be
>>>>>>> completed by the time the bylaws are supposed to be done (early
>>>>>>> June). In fact, it is not even clear at this point whether the new
>>>>>>> ICANN affiliate to be setup will be name "PTI" or have some other
>>>>>>> name. I don't understand how anyone can reason about whether
>>>>>>> 1.1(d)(ii) is an acceptable bylaws provision if it references a
>>>>>>> document that has not been written. (This also applies to (B) and (C)
>>>>>>> since it could apply to future documents that haven’t been written
>>>>>>> yet.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Furthermore, I question whether it is a sound decision to essentially
>>>>>>> allow for documents external to the bylaws to be able to modify the
>>>>>>> bylaws (under (F)). This section would make more sense if it was
>>>>>>> entirely internally specified, without the references to external
>>>>>>> documents. At a minimum, I think we should recommend that (D) be
>>>>> removed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160430/0902bd6a/attachment.sig>

From milton at gatech.edu  Sat Apr 30 14:22:41 2016
From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 14:22:41 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
In-Reply-To: <F046F249-4D67-4B43-A736-DF85A60F7B66@frobbit.se>
References: <0dkqxwvisx3vxxuy4d65oxff.1462009082976@email.android.com>
	<F046F249-4D67-4B43-A736-DF85A60F7B66@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <BL2PR07MB2404B51503B3BD3A73010172A1670@BL2PR07MB2404.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

I agree w Patrik.  It is incumbent upon the ICG to flag any consequential deviations from the proposals we processed.

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se]
> Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2016 8:02 AM
> To: joseph.alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
> Cc: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs at dyalog.net>; Lynn St.Amour
> <Lynn at LStAmour.org>; Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>; IANA etc
> etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
> 
> On 30 Apr 2016, at 11:38, joseph.alhadeff wrote:
> 
> > I am not opposed to the positions or the concerns, I am just not seeing a
> direct linkage to our specific transition work.  Can someone clarify the
> connection/dependency?
> 
> What I see is that the implementation work is not doing what is in the
> documents produced, but something else. As if the design process did not
> stop when ICG/CCWG documents where done.
> 
>    Patrik
> 
> > Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
> >
> > -------- Original message --------
> > From: "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs at dyalog.net>
> > Date: 4/30/2016  2:49 AM  (GMT-05:00)
> > To: Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>
> > Cc: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at LStAmour.org>, Milton L Mueller
> > <milton at gatech.edu>, IANA etc etcCoordination Group
> > <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
> >
> > Alissa,
> >
> > I support the position you advocate: the ICG can/should send a statement.
> And I'm willing to work with you, Lynn and others on that.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jean-Jacques.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Mail original -----
> > De: "Patrik Fältström" <paf at frobbit.se>
> > À: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at LStAmour.org>
> > Cc: "Milton L Mueller" <milton at gatech.edu>, "IANA etc etcCoordination
> > Group" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> > Envoyé: Samedi 30 Avril 2016 08:26:21
> > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
> >
> > FWIW, I personally would support such an initiative.
> >
> >    Patrik
> >
> > On 29 Apr 2016, at 19:55, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Alissa, Milton, all,
> >>
> >> I would like to come back to this subject.  Specifically, I would like to
> propose that the ICG send in a statement to the By-laws comment period.
> >>
> >> Alissa commented on a specific concern (see thread below) and I also
> believe the ICG should be concerned about the overreach in the draft bylaws.
> >>
> >> My main concerns are:
> >>
> >> - the fact that these draft by-laws, through the grand-fathering provisions,
> allow external agreements to define ICANN's Mission which seems like a bad
> idea for many reasons.  Further, this contradicts the desires of the community
> (or is a run around the community - intentional or not) who worked hard to
> clarify and correctly state ICANN’s mission throughout the IANA Transition
> process (paragraphs 140-144 of the CCWG-Accountability proposal).
> >>
> >> - the ICG process was fashioned to ensure that the transition plans
> reflected the consensus of the Internet community.  And, it was to respect the
> roles and responsibilities of the OCs in defining their own transition
> plans.  The ICG and the CCWG reports define those wishes, and any changes to
> the bylaws were to be to implement those wishes, nothing more.  Yet
> provisions in sections 1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(D) are outside the scope of both the ICG
> and the CCWG-Accountability proposals, and so there has not been
> appropriate community involvement or review for those changes.   Note:
> these sections affect much of the Internet community, as they apply to
> agreements between ICANN and the ASO, NRO, IETF, Root Zone Maintainer,
> and PTI.
> >>
> >> For transparency: the IAB/IETF are also concerned about the overreach and
> are drafting their own comments, and as an IAB appointee to the ICG, I am
> part of that review as well.
> >>
> >> If there is support for the ICG sending in a comment, I would be happy to
> work with Alissa and others to draft something for ICG review.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Lynn
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Apr 12, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> From the minutes it looks like this was discussed on the CCWG call and
> there will be follow-up.
> >>>
> >>>> On Apr 12, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I sent it yesterday but there has been no response at all.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
> >>>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:54 PM
> >>>>> To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> >>>>> Cc: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think that would be fine.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Alissa
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Apr 11, 2016, at 1:04 PM, Mueller, Milton L
> >>>>>> <milton at gatech.edu>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Alissa
> >>>>>> If you don't mind I will just forward your message to the bylaws
> >>>>>> and CWG
> >>>>> lists.
> >>>>>> If there is some other way you want me to do this, please let me know.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --MM
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On
> >>>>>>> Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:49 PM
> >>>>>>> To: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> >>>>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have looked a bit at the draft bylaws and I’d like to ask
> >>>>>>> Kavouss and Milton to bring the following issue back to the bylaws
> drafting group:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Section 1.1(d)(ii) incorporates by reference a number of
> >>>>>>> documents external to the bylaws as a means to prevent
> >>>>>>> challenges on the basis that those documents conflict with or
> >>>>>>> violate the bylaws. In particular, bullet (D) applies this
> >>>>>>> provision to "the IANA Naming Function Contract between ICANN
> and PTI effective [October 1, 2016]."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Given the ICG's historical encouragement of the community to
> >>>>>>> meet timelines necessary for a successful transition, I find
> >>>>>>> this provision to be extremely problematic. It incorporates a
> >>>>>>> reference to a document that does not exist yet and that is
> >>>>>>> unlikely to be completed by the time the bylaws are supposed to
> >>>>>>> be done (early June). In fact, it is not even clear at this
> >>>>>>> point whether the new ICANN affiliate to be setup will be name
> >>>>>>> "PTI" or have some other name. I don't understand how anyone can
> >>>>>>> reason about whether
> >>>>>>> 1.1(d)(ii) is an acceptable bylaws provision if it references a
> >>>>>>> document that has not been written. (This also applies to (B)
> >>>>>>> and (C) since it could apply to future documents that haven’t
> >>>>>>> been written
> >>>>>>> yet.)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Furthermore, I question whether it is a sound decision to
> >>>>>>> essentially allow for documents external to the bylaws to be
> >>>>>>> able to modify the bylaws (under (F)). This section would make
> >>>>>>> more sense if it was entirely internally specified, without the
> >>>>>>> references to external documents. At a minimum, I think we
> >>>>>>> should recommend that (D) be
> >>>>> removed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Alissa
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
> >>>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> >>>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Internal-cg mailing list
> >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

From Lynn at LStAmour.org  Sat Apr 30 14:24:12 2016
From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour)
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 10:24:12 -0400
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
In-Reply-To: <F046F249-4D67-4B43-A736-DF85A60F7B66@frobbit.se>
References: <0dkqxwvisx3vxxuy4d65oxff.1462009082976@email.android.com>
	<F046F249-4D67-4B43-A736-DF85A60F7B66@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <0F8F4050-0C0C-48BB-9660-FB38C25EED46@LStAmour.org>


> On Apr 30, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
> 
> On 30 Apr 2016, at 11:38, joseph.alhadeff wrote:
> 
>> I am not opposed to the positions or the concerns, I am just not seeing a direct linkage to our specific transition work.  Can someone clarify the connection/dependency?
> 
> What I see is that the implementation work is not doing what is in the documents produced, but something else. As if the design process did not stop when ICG/CCWG documents where done.
> 
>   Patrik
> 

..support and adding to Patrik’s comment, the bylaws are going beyond the community consensus (ICG and CCWG reports) and hence doing so without appropriate involvement from the full community or OCs.   

Lynn

From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Sat Apr 30 15:11:12 2016
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 17:11:12 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
In-Reply-To: <0F8F4050-0C0C-48BB-9660-FB38C25EED46@LStAmour.org>
References: <0dkqxwvisx3vxxuy4d65oxff.1462009082976@email.android.com><F046F249-4D67-4B43-A736-DF85A60F7B66@frobbit.se>
	<0F8F4050-0C0C-48BB-9660-FB38C25EED46@LStAmour.org>
Message-ID: <0E73F1F1089B4DBAA84520353AA2615F@WUKPC>

I'm in agreement to participate appropriatelyas ICG in the public comment.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Lynn St.Amour
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2016 4:24 PM
To: Patrik Fältström
Cc: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group ; Milton L Mueller
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback


> On Apr 30, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>
> On 30 Apr 2016, at 11:38, joseph.alhadeff wrote:
>
>> I am not opposed to the positions or the concerns, I am just not seeing a 
>> direct linkage to our specific transition work.  Can someone clarify the 
>> connection/dependency?
>
> What I see is that the implementation work is not doing what is in the 
> documents produced, but something else. As if the design process did not 
> stop when ICG/CCWG documents where done.
>
>   Patrik
>

..support and adding to Patrik’s comment, the bylaws are going beyond the 
community consensus (ICG and CCWG reports) and hence doing so without 
appropriate involvement from the full community or OCs.

Lynn
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org 



From milton at gatech.edu  Sat Apr 30 15:16:09 2016
From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 15:16:09 +0000
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
In-Reply-To: <648952D9-5962-4E6D-8271-55AE178F9113@cooperw.in>
References: <79AB2AAA-ECED-4A05-A437-16F100D664EE@cooperw.in>
	<BY2PR07MB24083E6A7C9FD72960263DC9A1940@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<E0CCF362-49CB-4EDA-AAAC-3874D4E0C36C@cooperw.in>
	<BY2PR07MB240866EA6A221BE8410FC309A1950@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<6170505D-57EB-4017-A9B6-68D37E9EF4EF@cooperw.in>
	<5978117D-AD72-4C5B-80D2-24CAED51A922@LStAmour.org>
	<BY2PR07MB240806C2A4AFCF1C3EE3E0CFA1660@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<648952D9-5962-4E6D-8271-55AE178F9113@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <BL2PR07MB2404816B0FE54DACA9D2565BA1670@BL2PR07MB2404.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

Ok, I have had time to read the transcript. I am even more strongly committed to developing a comment as ICG.

Alissa said on the call that 1.1.d.(ii) “creates 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.”

[and, I might add, the RZM contract, and renewals of registry contracts].

The only answer I saw to this was that we don’t need to worry about it because the PTI contract will be put up for public comment.

Alissa also made the point:
"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’s 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 –I 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."

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.

Indeed, I am having trouble understanding the threat that these sections are supposed to avoid.

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.

So I hope we are able to make it clear to ICANN and the CCWG that these provisions need to be changed..


From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 3:00 PM
To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
Cc: Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at LStAmour.org>; IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback

For folks following this issue, it is definitely worth reading the transcript or listening to the recording of the last CCWG call: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58730392

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.

I think there are substantive issues too, but from an ICG perspective we may or may not want to focus on those.

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’t even occur until after the bylaws were put out for public comment.

Alissa


On Apr 29, 2016, at 11:17 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:

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.

--MM


-----Original Message-----
From: Lynn St.Amour [mailto:Lynn at LStAmour.org]
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 1:55 PM
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>; Mueller, Milton L
<milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>; IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-
cg at ianacg.org<mailto:cg at ianacg.org>>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback

Hi Alissa, Milton, all,

I would like to come back to this subject.  Specifically, I would like to propose
that the ICG send in a statement to the By-laws comment period.

Alissa commented on a specific concern (see thread below) and I also believe
the ICG should be concerned about the overreach in the draft bylaws.

My main concerns are:

- the fact that these draft by-laws, through the grand-fathering provisions,
allow external agreements to define ICANN's Mission which seems like a bad
idea for many reasons.  Further, this contradicts the desires of the community
(or is a run around the community - intentional or not) who worked hard to
clarify and correctly state ICANN’s mission throughout the IANA Transition
process (paragraphs 140-144 of the CCWG-Accountability proposal).

- the ICG process was fashioned to ensure that the transition plans reflected
the consensus of the Internet community.  And, it was to respect the roles and
responsibilities of the OCs in defining their own transition plans.  The ICG and
the CCWG reports define those wishes, and any changes to the bylaws were to
be to implement those wishes, nothing more.  Yet provisions in sections
1.1(d)(ii)(B)-(D) are outside the scope of both the ICG and the CCWG-
Accountability proposals, and so there has not been appropriate community
involvement or review for those changes.   Note: these sections affect much
of the Internet community, as they apply to agreements between ICANN and
the ASO, NRO, IETF, Root Zone Maintainer, and PTI.

For transparency: the IAB/IETF are also concerned about the overreach and
are drafting their own comments, and as an IAB appointee to the ICG, I am
part of that review as well.

If there is support for the ICG sending in a comment, I would be happy to work
with Alissa and others to draft something for ICG review.

Regards,
Lynn



On Apr 12, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>> wrote:

From the minutes it looks like this was discussed on the CCWG call and there
will be follow-up.



On Apr 12, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
wrote:


I sent it yesterday but there has been no response at all.



-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:54 PM
To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
Cc: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback

I think that would be fine.

Thanks,
Alissa


On Apr 11, 2016, at 1:04 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
wrote:


Alissa
If you don't mind I will just forward your message to the bylaws
and CWG
lists.

If there is some other way you want me to do this, please let me know.

--MM


-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On
Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:49 PM
To: IANA etc etcCoordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>>
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback

I have looked a bit at the draft bylaws and I’d like to ask
Kavouss and Milton to bring the following issue back to the bylaws
drafting group:


Section 1.1(d)(ii) incorporates by reference a number of documents
external to the bylaws as a means to prevent challenges on the
basis that those documents conflict with or violate the bylaws. In
particular, bullet (D) applies this provision to "the IANA Naming
Function Contract between ICANN and PTI effective [October 1, 2016]."

Given the ICG's historical encouragement of the community to meet
timelines necessary for a successful transition, I find this
provision to be extremely problematic. It incorporates a reference
to a document that does not exist yet and that is unlikely to be
completed by the time the bylaws are supposed to be done (early
June). In fact, it is not even clear at this point whether the new
ICANN affiliate to be setup will be name "PTI" or have some other
name. I don't understand how anyone can reason about whether
1.1(d)(ii) is an acceptable bylaws provision if it references a
document that has not been written. (This also applies to (B) and
(C) since it could apply to future documents that haven’t been
written
yet.)

Furthermore, I question whether it is a sound decision to
essentially allow for documents external to the bylaws to be able
to modify the bylaws (under (F)). This section would make more
sense if it was entirely internally specified, without the
references to external documents. At a minimum, I think we should
recommend that (D) be
removed.


Thanks,
Alissa
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160430/044e8a92/attachment.html>

From paf at frobbit.se  Sat Apr 30 17:20:00 2016
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 19:20:00 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
In-Reply-To: <BL2PR07MB2404816B0FE54DACA9D2565BA1670@BL2PR07MB2404.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <79AB2AAA-ECED-4A05-A437-16F100D664EE@cooperw.in>
	<BY2PR07MB24083E6A7C9FD72960263DC9A1940@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<E0CCF362-49CB-4EDA-AAAC-3874D4E0C36C@cooperw.in>
	<BY2PR07MB240866EA6A221BE8410FC309A1950@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<6170505D-57EB-4017-A9B6-68D37E9EF4EF@cooperw.in>
	<5978117D-AD72-4C5B-80D2-24CAED51A922@LStAmour.org>
	<BY2PR07MB240806C2A4AFCF1C3EE3E0CFA1660@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<648952D9-5962-4E6D-8271-55AE178F9113@cooperw.in>
	<BL2PR07MB2404816B0FE54DACA9D2565BA1670@BL2PR07MB2404.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <2C426BBC-C2F6-4E29-82DF-C118B52FAC82@frobbit.se>

On 30 Apr 2016, at 17:16, Mueller, Milton L wrote:

> The only answer I saw to this was that we don’t need to worry about it because the PTI contract will be put up for public comment.

A public comment period should not be The Mechanism that is used to ensure the proposal stays within the realm of the documents produced. The process followed to create the bylaws must include validation mechanisms to minimize deviation.

   Patrik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160430/40ec6637/attachment.sig>

From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Sat Apr 30 19:04:41 2016
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 21:04:41 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
In-Reply-To: <2C426BBC-C2F6-4E29-82DF-C118B52FAC82@frobbit.se>
References: <79AB2AAA-ECED-4A05-A437-16F100D664EE@cooperw.in>
	<BY2PR07MB24083E6A7C9FD72960263DC9A1940@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<E0CCF362-49CB-4EDA-AAAC-3874D4E0C36C@cooperw.in>
	<BY2PR07MB240866EA6A221BE8410FC309A1950@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<6170505D-57EB-4017-A9B6-68D37E9EF4EF@cooperw.in>
	<5978117D-AD72-4C5B-80D2-24CAED51A922@LStAmour.org>
	<BY2PR07MB240806C2A4AFCF1C3EE3E0CFA1660@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<648952D9-5962-4E6D-8271-55AE178F9113@cooperw.in>
	<BL2PR07MB2404816B0FE54DACA9D2565BA1670@BL2PR07MB2404.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<2C426BBC-C2F6-4E29-82DF-C118B52FAC82@frobbit.se>
Message-ID: <CACNR4-KwZQZuPZKB3s47Uox1abGgzgK1MMCQuj7HLLuPB8xahw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,
It is surprising that after so many messages and so many weaning still
ICANN  LEGAL DEPARETMENT oir Lawyers of Snidely and Adler insist to have
cross reference to unknown and unwritten documents.
It is legally inappropriate and wrong to provide a anklet overgraze to some
documents the constant of which is unknown'
Rgis is against the very interest of ICG

2016-04-30 19:20 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>:

> On 30 Apr 2016, at 17:16, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> > The only answer I saw to this was that we don’t need to worry about it
> because the PTI contract will be put up for public comment.
>
> A public comment period should not be The Mechanism that is used to ensure
> the proposal stays within the realm of the documents produced. The process
> followed to create the bylaws must include validation mechanisms to
> minimize deviation.
>
>    Patrik
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160430/0c1ddba1/attachment.html>

From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com  Sat Apr 30 19:05:48 2016
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh)
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 21:05:48 +0200
Subject: [Internal-cg] bylaws feedback
In-Reply-To: <CACNR4-KwZQZuPZKB3s47Uox1abGgzgK1MMCQuj7HLLuPB8xahw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <79AB2AAA-ECED-4A05-A437-16F100D664EE@cooperw.in>
	<BY2PR07MB24083E6A7C9FD72960263DC9A1940@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<E0CCF362-49CB-4EDA-AAAC-3874D4E0C36C@cooperw.in>
	<BY2PR07MB240866EA6A221BE8410FC309A1950@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<6170505D-57EB-4017-A9B6-68D37E9EF4EF@cooperw.in>
	<5978117D-AD72-4C5B-80D2-24CAED51A922@LStAmour.org>
	<BY2PR07MB240806C2A4AFCF1C3EE3E0CFA1660@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<648952D9-5962-4E6D-8271-55AE178F9113@cooperw.in>
	<BL2PR07MB2404816B0FE54DACA9D2565BA1670@BL2PR07MB2404.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<2C426BBC-C2F6-4E29-82DF-C118B52FAC82@frobbit.se>
	<CACNR4-KwZQZuPZKB3s47Uox1abGgzgK1MMCQuj7HLLuPB8xahw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACNR4-Ln-svqFnyZCvi8DbSV1Rx1tMZC3-WbUZi9ppQRk0Q_bA@mail.gmail.com>

À *Thomas*, *León*, Patrik, Holly, Rosemary, Mathieu, Milton, Lynn, IANA
Dear All,
It is surprising that after so many messages and so many weaning still
ICANN  LEGAL DEPARETMENT oir Lawyers of Snidely and Adler insist to have
cross reference to unknown and unwritten documents.
It is legally inappropriate and wrong to provide a anklet overgraze to some
documents the constant of which is unknown'
Rgis is against the very interest of ICG\
Regards
Kavouss

2016-04-30 21:04 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:

> Dear All,
> It is surprising that after so many messages and so many weaning still
> ICANN  LEGAL DEPARETMENT oir Lawyers of Snidely and Adler insist to have
> cross reference to unknown and unwritten documents.
> It is legally inappropriate and wrong to provide a anklet overgraze to
> some documents the constant of which is unknown'
> Rgis is against the very interest of ICG
>
> 2016-04-30 19:20 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>:
>
>> On 30 Apr 2016, at 17:16, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>
>> > The only answer I saw to this was that we don’t need to worry about it
>> because the PTI contract will be put up for public comment.
>>
>> A public comment period should not be The Mechanism that is used to
>> ensure the proposal stays within the realm of the documents produced. The
>> process followed to create the bylaws must include validation mechanisms to
>> minimize deviation.
>>
>>    Patrik
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160430/22840b82/attachment.html>