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

[Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@xxxxxx>]

> On Nov 4, 2016, at 9:44 AM, <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <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