[CCWG-Accountability] Fwd: CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1

Tue Dec 30 05:54:08 UTC 2014

Phil,

ccTLD Managers do not have contracts (but for 5 or so). 

el

Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On Dec 30, 2014, at 00:52, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
> 
> I will check out David's proposal. But registries are already contracted parties. Would the new terms amend the current standard contract or be a new second agreement? 
> 
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/Cell
> 
> Twitter: @VLawDC
> 
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Dec 29, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
> 
>> David Johnson has proposed between ICANN and the Registries.  Others have suggested a quasi-contract via Bylaws amendments that are enforceable through arbitration by the community.  The floor is open for other suggestions if you want to make one …
>>  
>> P
>>  
>> **NOTE:  OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***
>> 509 C St. NE
>> Washington, DC 20002
>>  
>> Paul Rosenzweig
>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>> Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
>> Link to my PGP Key
>>  
>> From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:epilisse at gmail.com] 
>> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 9:47 AM
>> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Fwd: CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Contract between whom and whom?
>>  
>> Works almost anywhere else...
>>  
>> ...in the World
>>  
>> el
>> 
>> -- 
>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
>>  
>> 
>> On Dec 29, 2014, at 15:37, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at actonline.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Of course, the use of a contract is a bit of a blunt instrument of accountability absent some structure for transactional checks and balances. Let’s not miss the opportunity to replace it with something more operational while we’re at it.
>>  
>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji
>> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:37 AM
>> To: avri
>> Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1
>>  
>> sent from Google nexus 4
>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>> On 29 Dec 2014 06:43, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > And that presupposes that the CSG-Stewardship WG won't stick with the principle of separability in its recommended solution. 
>> >
>> > If it does stick with separability then a contractual relationship remains as an ongoing leverage point. In terms of CWG-Stewardship work, Contract Co holding the contract, still appears to be quite active as a proposal.
>> >
>> While I won't attempt start discussing contract co approach in details here, I will just say that since we are speaking of ICANN accountability, then it becomes a thing of relevance to discuss the accountability aspect of contract co (if this cwg is considering it as an option).
>> 
>> > Perhaps we need to look at the WS1 list in terms of the binary discriminant: is there an ongoing contractual relationship with an eternal entity or not.  I expect the WS1 list will vary based on which of these is being considered.
>> >
>> Well if we have the time for this, that's fine. However, while asking that question, let's also be sure to review the characteristics of the current external entity in considering a replacement (which is where accountability of such entity comes in the picture)
>> 
>> Regards
>> > avri
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 28-Dec-14 22:57, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Of course, in so much as the transition represents a loss of leverage, WS1 needs to sufficiently replace it. It’s not really about the IANA transition itself so much as the elimination of the contractual relationship. I agree with Alan that we need to be disciplined about what to include in WS1 to ensure that we come away with the leverage to accomplish WS2.
>> >>
>> >>  
>> >>
>> >> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
>> >> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2014 9:35 PM
>> >> To: Steve DelBianco; Accountability CCWG
>> >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1
>> >>
>> >>  
>> >>
>> >> I am somewhat troubled by all of the items in WS1 where I do not see the direct link to the IANA transition (even if the IANA transition was directly to ICANN without the intervening Contract Co.)
>> >>
>> >> Note I am not saying that they might not be perfectly valid and desirable accountability mechanism, just that I do not see the direct link, and thus perhaps greatly increasing our work to be done to allow transition.
>> >>
>> >> I do understand that it may be easier to get some of these accepted if done in association with WS1, but if we make our WS1 task too all-inclusive, it may not get done at all.
>> >>
>> >> Alan
>> >>
>> >> At 28/12/2014 07:53 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hope all of you are enjoying the holidays.  Work Team 2 has added several ideas and requests that arrived after 21-Dec.  Draft v5.1 is attached, reflecting these changes:
>> >>>
>> >>> CWG requests: IANA Stewardship CWG co-chairs Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr requested 3 new accountability items in Category 1, Work Stream 1.   These 3 items are flagged as CWG (in red and bold)
>> >>>
>> >>>  
>> >>>
>> >>> David Johnson: For Category 1, Work Stream 1, proposed a contract between ICANN and Registries & Registrars, with Registrants as 3rd party beneficiaries. Contract lets ICANN impose rules on others only when supported by consensus of affected parties.  Disputes go to independent arbitration panel that could issue binding decisions.  In a discussion with David, we thought the contract could work alongside the Member structure, not instead of it.
>> >>>
>> >>> Izumi Okutani and Athina Fragkouli noted support for four accountability items, but would place them in Work Stream 2 and suggested some wording changes.
>> >>>
>> >>> Malcolm Hutty requested an item be moved to Work Stream 1: "Ensure that the ICANN Board can be held to its Bylaws, with effective remedy if breach found by independent adjudicator.â€      Seun Ojedeji requested an alternative: â€œfound by the community"
>> >>>
>> >>> Daniel Castro of ITIF and Wisdom Donkor requested Open Data transparency rules, in Category 3, Work Stream 2.
>> >>>
>> >>> Guru Achayra: For Category 1, Work Stream 1, proposed an Accountability Contract between ICANN and â€˜Contract Co.â€™ to replace the Affirmation of Commitments
>> >>>
>> >>> Carlos GutiÃ©rrez: requested 4 new prescribed actions in Category 3, Work Stream 2
>> >>>
>> >>> Apologies if I have missed other suggestions.  Look forward to discussing on our next call.
>> >>>
>> >>> —
>> >>> <
>> >>> Steve DelBianco
>> >>> Executive Director
>> >>> NetChoice
>> >>> http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
>> >>> +1.202.420.7482
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> >
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4253/8773 - Release Date: 12/20/14
>> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>> 
>> <ATT00001.c>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20141230/ea0849fe/attachment.html>