[PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles of Incorporation? FINAL TEXT

Wed Jul 6 22:23:32 EEST 2016

Yes. No need for full consensus on the PC.

And one vote in favour from me.

Tapani

On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 03:17:14PM -0400, avri doria (avri at apc.org) wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Just an observer mind you, but if you can collect a sufficient number of
> PC members saying ok now, i think you can send it as NCSG.
> 
> I recommend you ship it as NCSG.
> 
> The other option is send it as personal and follow up tomorrow with and
> NCSG note saying we support it.
> 
> But the first option is better.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 06-Jul-16 13:49, matthew shears wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Some of the PC have kindly looked at the text and made comments. 
> > However there was no call for consensus on this (my mistake) not has
> > there been a great deal of interest. 
> >
> > The deadline for filing is tonight 23:59 UTC.  Below is the final
> > draft text.  I feel this is important to file - however I am not sure
> > that it is possible to do so as NCSG due to not following the process
> > or calling for consensus. 
> >
> > One option would be for individuals of the NCSG PC to sign on.  I
> > welcome your thoughts.
> >
> > ----------------------
> >
> > Contribution to the public comment on the Draft Restated ICANN
> > Articles of Incorporation - 6 July 2016.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you for the opportunity to contribute comments on the restated
> > Articles of Incorporation .
> >
> >
> > One of the purposes of reviewing and restating of the Articles of
> > Incorporation (AoI) is to ensure that they are consistent with and
> > reflect the intent and purpose of the new Bylaws.
> >
> >
> > However, we found one particular issue related to the issue of global
> > public interest or GPI where the restated AoI do not reflect the
> > language nor the intent of the new Bylaws .
> >
> >
> > Section 1.2 (b) Core Value (ii) of the new bylaws states (our
> > highlighting):
> >
> >
> > (ii) Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting
> > the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at
> > all levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that
> > the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to
> > ascertain the global public interestand that those processes are
> > accountable and transparent;
> >
> >
> > However, Article 2 of the the restated Articles of Incorporation states:
> >
> >
> > ... In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of
> > the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks,
> > owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation
> > shall, except as limited by Article 4 hereof, pursue the charitable
> > and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and
> > promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of
> > the Internet, as such global public interest may be determined from
> > time to time by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive
> > bottom-up multistakeholder community process, by carrying out the
> > mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (?Bylaws?).
> >
> >
> > The language in the restated AoI is far from adequate and in no way
> > reflects the intent of the CCWG plan as expressed in  the new Bylaws.
> > The new Bylaws are designed to ensure that the global public interest
> > will be ascertained through bottom-up multistakeholder policy
> > development processes. To the contrary, in the restated AoI, global
> > public interest "may be determined from time to time" through a
> > multistakeholder community process.  This inconsistency should be
> > addressed in the restated AoI through replacing "may be determined
> > from time to time by the multistakeholder community..." with "shall be
> > determined by the multistakeholder community..!" if we are to bring
> > the AoI in conformity with the Bylaws.
> >
> >
> > We look forward to this issue being addressed in the final version of
> > the restated Articles of Incorporation.
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> >
> >
> > On 06/07/2016 03:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> >>
> >> I made a few grammaticals, likely am late for the train.  Showing as
> >> anonymous.  Thanks for doing this, it is a very important point.
> >>
> >> Stephanie
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2016-07-04 18:22, matthew shears wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear all
> >>>
> >>> I would draw your attention to the message below from one of our
> >>> members and to the proposed comments I had circulated earlier
> >>> through Trello and spearately.  At a minimum I believe that NCSG
> >>> should comment on the issues related to GPI, as stated in the
> >>> proposed draft text here in this google doc:
> >>>
> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_0L_c5vCdksJ9TVzfCDoN5OesxJLiRmLwyqQtdLBdrY/edit?pref=2&pli=1
> >>>
> >>> I look foward to your comments on this particular point and on any
> >>> others related to the restated AoI you may wish to raise.  Please
> >>> comment directly in the google doc.
> >>>
> >>> The restated articles are here:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-25may16-en.pdf
> >>>
> >>> The full consultation details can be found here:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-2016-05-27-en
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your contributions.
> >>>
> >>> Matthew
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> >>> Subject: 	Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles of
> >>> Incorporation?
> >>> Date: 	Mon, 4 Jul 2016 21:42:05 +0000
> >>> From: 	Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
> >>> To: 	Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>
> >>> CC: 	Accountability Cross Community
> >>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thomas,
> >>>
> >>> As stated in our public comment, I am concerned about the ambiguity
> >>> of the AoI text on the global public interest. As I sent to the list
> >>> last Sunday, I do not believe that Samantha's new text on the global
> >>> public interest addresses the concerns raised in the June 20 call.
> >>> Specifically, that the proposed phrasing leaves open the possibility
> >>> that the GPI could at times be determined by non-bottom up
> >>> multi-stakeholder process. 
> >>>
> >>> I suggest that the CCWG request the following text instead of
> >>> Samantha's text circulated last Sunday: _as such the global public
> >>> interest shall be determined by the multistakeholder community
> >>> through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process
> >>> consistent with the mission set forth in the bylaws of the
> >>> Corporation (?*Bylaws*?)._
> >>>
> >>> I believe that this text would remove any ambiguity about how GPI is
> >>> determined. 
> >>>
> >>> I understand that this would be more controversial and not
> >>> necessarily legally necessary, but I think that the AoI would be
> >>> clearer if "organized" were replaced by "incorporated" or "organized
> >>> and incorporated" and the location of the headquarters was inserted. 
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Brett
> >>>
> >>> __________
> >>>
> >>> On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Dear all,
> >>>> it was good to see many of you in Helsinki and I hope that you had
> >>>> safe trips back home. 
> >>>>
> >>>> We discussed the draft Articles of Incorporation during our last
> >>>> telco and agreed that Sam would send additional information to the
> >>>> list and all of us would then consider further whether or not all
> >>>> concerns have been removed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks to Sam for providing more information in the meantime. 
> >>>>
> >>>> With the end of the public comment period approaching rapidly, I
> >>>> would now like those of you who think we should raise concerns with
> >>>> a CCWG comment to write to the list within the next 24 hours (until
> >>>> 20.00 UTC on July 5th). Should any concerns raised get ssufficient
> >>>> traction to be considered a CCWG position, we will prepare a
> >>>> comment on that basis.  
> >>>>
> >>>> In any case, we will issue a brief CCWG comment supporting the
> >>>> draft either unconditionally or with any additional CCWG comments
> >>>> there might be based on the approach described above.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks and kind regards,
> >>>> Thomas
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> rickert.net <http://rickert.net>
> >>>>
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> BrettSchaefer
> >>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> >>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
> >>> Security and Foreign Policy
> >>> The Heritage Foundation
> >>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> >>> Washington, DC 20002
> >>> 202-608-6097
> >>> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >>>> https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/ar94B3IW62RuD
> >>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
> >>>
> >>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> > -- 
> >
> > --------------
> > Matthew Shears
> > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> > + 44 771 2472987