[PC-NCSG] Deadline extended for ICANN's restated Article of Incorporation to July 13
matthew shears
mshears
Wed Jul 13 19:14:27 EEST 2016
Hi all
New deadline is today. But there have been developments on the CCWG
list that may have resolved this issue. The proposed text that was
agreed on a recent call would change the proposed AOI language:
"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?)."
To the following:
"Such global public interest may be determined from time to time. Any
determination of such global public interest_shall be made _by the
multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up
multistakeholder community process"
This means that GPI may be determined as is needed and that any such
determination shall be done by BUMP.
I believe this provides the clarity that the original text did not and
therefore addresses the concern that was highlighted in the proposed
NCSG submission. I think this obviates the need for us to submit.
Matthew
On 08/07/2016 14:24, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi Matt,
> I don't agree that the Bylaws and the AoI are inconsistent with each
> other.
> Articles and Bylaws have different purposes and functions. The
> Articles state that the GPI can be determined by the community through
> BUMP if it so desires. That's general and flexible, as Articles of
> Incorporation should be. The Bylaws are more specific, as Bylaws
> should be, ensuring that BUMP is used to ensure GPI. Nowhere, though,
> is it mandated that the GPI must be determined, just that if it is
> done so BUMP must be used. This is the same in both the Articles and
> the Bylaws.
> One note about hierarchy: the Articles are the superior legal
> instrument and Bylaws need to conform to it, not the other way
> around. We're actually doing things a bit backwards here in the
> transition proposals.
> I am opposed to using the word "shall" in any context here as is
> offered in the proposed NCSG statement. "Shall" requires establishment
> of a GPI and that is not faithful to either the proposed Articles or
> the Bylaws. Legally it would open up questions of timing
> and legitimacy of the validity of any definition ( what would an IRP
> consider a minimum acceptable definition, if the community is
> /required/ to establish one?) and opens the question as how to proceed
> in parts of the Articles and Bylaws mentioning GPI if the BUMP is
> unable to agree on a GPI definition in a timely manner.
> I have no problem in supporting the Articles as written. As counsel
> has written "From a legal drafting perspective, the word "may" is
> appropriate in this context, specifically as used in the phrase "may
> be determined from time to time" which indicates that the
> determination is made based on when the need for a determination
> arises. Use of "may" in this context does not suggest that someone
> other than the multistakeholder community has a decision right".
> This opinion was supported by both Sidley and Austin and Adler and
> Colvin, the two law firms engaged by the CCWG, both of which have a
> fiduciary obligation to act faithfully and in the best interest of
> this community. I believe they have done so here.
> The NCSG proposal is a solution to a problem that does not exist. In
> fact, by proposing to require community determination of the GPI
> through use of the word "shall" it creates a number of potential
> problems that the current formula does not risk. The proposed Articles
> are superior to the NCSG proposal and as such I do not support
> submission of the proposed statement on behalf of the NCSG.
> Thanks for all of your hard work on this, Matt. Although I do agree
> with our lawyers that we don't have any real problem here, I do
> appreciate your concern and perceptions and appreciate your effort in
> bringing them to the attention of all of us.
> Respectfully,
> Ed Morris
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "matthew shears" <mshears at cdt.org>
> *Sent*: Friday, July 8, 2016 12:51 PM
> *To*: "PC-NCSG" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> *Subject*: [PC-NCSG] Deadline extended for ICANN's restated Article of
> Incorporation to July 13
>
> Dear all
>
> Following some extensive e-mailing in the last hours of the public
> comment on the CCWG list about the need for more time, ICANN has
> agreed to extend this deadline to _July 13_. I filed the attached
> just before the deadline, then received the mail from Ed, followed the
> last minute exchanges on the CCWG list and then saw that the deadline
> had been extended. I did not confirm submission as a result, so the
> attached comment was _not_ filed.
>
> There has been some to-ing and fro-ing on the CCWG list as Ed noted in
> his mail. The CCWG's outside counsel is comfortable with the use of
> "may from time to time" for example. They state in a mail to the
> CCWG: "From a legal drafting perspective, the word ?may? is
> appropriate in this context, specifically as it is used in the phrase
> ?may be determined from time to time? which indicates that the
> determination is made based on when the need for a determination
> arises. Use of ?may? in this context does not suggest that someone
> other than the multistakeholder community has a decision right."
> Personally, I would normally be fine with the CCWG out side counsel's
> findings but in this case I still have concerns. To elaborate:
>
> The CCWG in its final proposal stated the following (my highlighting
> and underlining):
>
> CCWG-Accountability Final Recommendation 1, para 51: The Articles
> of Incorporation will be amended _to clarify_ that*the global
> public interest will be determined through a bottom-up,
> multistakeholder process*.
>
> CCWG-Accountability Final Recommendation 5, para 153 (core values)
> 2: 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 interest *and that those
> processes are accountable and transparent.
>
> These two statements above are pretty clear. The statement in para 51
> is definitive using the word "will"; the statement in para 153
> reinforces that through the use of the word "ensure".
>
> It would seem to me that the restated AoI does not reflect the
> language above (which is a different matter than whether or not the
> "may" is an appropriate legal term). In my view the proposed AoI
> langauge goes further than clarifying and in so doing dilutes the
> language in para 51 above:
>
> Text from the Draft Restated Articles of Incorporation: ?, the
> Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 54 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 by (i) coordinating the
> assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain
> universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing and
> overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet
> Protocol ("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing
> functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name
> system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for
> determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains
> are added to the DNS root system; (iv) overseeing operation of the
> authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and (v) engaging in
> any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i)
> through (iv), *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*?).
>
> In the attached NCSG I added a comment suggesting using the specific
> language from paras 51 and 153 as a replacement for the language in
> the restated AoI. I think this would be the simplest appraoch and
> also remain consistent with what we as the CCWG and broader community
> have agreed.
>
> We can still file the attached. But I feel further discussion is
> warranted on this matter in the PC.
>
> Your thoughts are very welcome.
>
> Matthew
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: NCSG comment on restated AoI
> Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 22:57:49 +0100
> From: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>
> To: comments-draft-restated-articles-incorporation-27may16 at icann.org
>
> Please see attached.
>
> Matthew Shears
> NCSG - PC
>
>
> --------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>
>
>
--
--------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160713/fe292309/attachment.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list