Re: [council] Motion re the report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team

[Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@xxxxxx>]

Paul,

Considering the many times that ICANN Legal was found during WS1 to have given 
biased advice, and I don't think it's a matter of complexity. 

That said, we should first ask ourselves whether to seek that legal advice or 
not, but if we do, I fail to see why we shouldn't follow the same MO as WS1. 


Rubens


> On Nov 4, 2016, at 10:19 AM, policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> I suppose the reason is that this isn't a difficult topic like trying to 
> identify a jurisdiction that can host a sole designator model.  This just 
> boils down to "can write in the word 'Council' where we wish it existed but 
> doesn't, especially when writing it changes the substantive meaning of the 
> Bylaws by shifting power from the members of the GNSO to the Council of the 
> GNSO with its controversial voting structure.  Seems like a straightforward 
> question to me, not needing expensive outside counsel.  If, however, ICANN 
> Legal believes it is unqualified to answer the question, I suppose they could 
> refer it out...
> 
> Best,
> Paul
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Motion re the report from the GNSO Bylaws
> Implementation Drafting Team
> From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@xxxxxx <mailto:rubensk@xxxxxx>>
> Date: Thu, November 03, 2016 9:36 pm
> To: policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, WUKnoben
> <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
> GNSO council
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO secretariat
> <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> 
> 
>> On Nov 4, 2016, at 9:44 AM, <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>> <mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>> <mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Amr,
>> 
>> Thanks for your note. You say something very interesting, namely "If the 
>> Council believes that the DT did not act in accordance with the instructions 
>> it received in the motion that created it, then perhaps the CSG may have 
>> reason to request that the DT report and recommendations not be 
>> approved/adopted. That is not the case, however."  The point of the minority 
>> report is that it actually is the case that the DT did not follow the 
>> instructions.  Instead of coming back with recommendations based upon how 
>> the new Bylaws are actually written, much of the Report simply boils down to 
>> inserting the word "Council" before "GNSO" wherever that it suits the 
>> majority.  This, of course, is a novel reading and undoes quite a bit of 
>> Workstream 1 which was designed to ensure that all members of the Empowered 
>> Community are empowered, not just a lucky few.
>> 
>> 
>> Given the novel reading of the Bylaws required to approve the Report, what 
>> is the objection to seeking advice from ICANN Legal?  Is the majority is 
>> concerned that ICANN Legal will come back and make it clear that the novel 
>> reading is inappropriate?  If so, then it seems to me that it is extra 
>> important to have ICANN Legal look this over before we leap.  Can you please 
>> explain the hesitancy to have ICANN's lawyers look at this?
> 
> Paul, 
> 
> Is there a reason why the legal advice being suggested is only the ICANN 
> staff one, while WS1 always had legal advice from both ICANN/Jones Day and 
> Sidney/Adler ? 
> 
> 
> 
> Rubens
> 
>