ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "Rubens Kuhl" <rubensk@xxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Motion re the report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team
  • From: <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 21:49:41 -0700
  • Cc: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO secretariat" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Workspace Webmail 6.5.4
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000; 
font-size:10pt;"><div>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. 
&nbsp;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. &nbsp;Seems like a 
straightforward question to me, not needing expensive outside counsel. 
&nbsp;If, however, ICANN Legal believes it is unqualified to answer the 
question, I suppose they could refer it 
out...</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Paul</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid 
blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black; 
font-family:verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: Re: [council] Motion re the report from the GNSO Bylaws<br>
Implementation Drafting Team<br>
From: Rubens Kuhl &lt;<a href="mailto:rubensk@xxxxxx";>rubensk@xxxxxx</a>&gt;<br>
Date: Thu, November 03, 2016 9:36 pm<br>
To: <a href="mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a><br>
Cc: Amr Elsadr &lt;<a 
href="mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx";>aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>&gt;,        
WUKnoben<br>
&lt;<a 
href="mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx";>wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>&gt;,
        GNSO council<br>
&lt;<a href="mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>&gt;,     
   GNSO secretariat<br>
&lt;<a 
href="mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>&gt;<br>
<br>
<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 4, 
2016, at 9:44 AM, &lt;<a target="_blank" href="mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"; 
class="">policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>&gt; &lt;<a target="_blank" 
href="mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"; class="">policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>&gt; 
wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""> <div 
class=""><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;" class=""><div 
class="">Hi Amr,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks for 
your note. You say something very interesting, namely "<span style="" 
class="">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." &nbsp;The point of the 
minority report is that it actually is the case that the DT did not follow the 
instructions. &nbsp;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. 
&nbsp;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.</span></div><div class=""><span style="" 
class=""><br class=""></span><span style="font-size: 10pt;" 
class=""></span></div><div class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt;" class=""><br 
class=""></span></div><div class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt;" 
class="">Given the novel reading of the Bylaws required to approve the Report, 
what is the objection to seeking advice from ICANN Legal? &nbsp;Is the majority 
is concerned that ICANN Legal will come back and make it clear that the novel 
reading is inappropriate? &nbsp;If so, then it seems to me that it is extra 
important to have ICANN Legal look this over before we leap. &nbsp;Can you 
please explain the hesitancy to have ICANN's lawyers look at 
this?</span></div></span></div></div></blockquote><br 
class=""></div><div>Paul,&nbsp;</div><div><br class=""></div><div>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 
?&nbsp;</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br 
class=""></div><div>Rubens</div><div><br class=""></div><br class="">
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>