[CCWG-ACCT] 17 UTC deadline for final edits

[Schaefer, Brett]

All,

First, an apology for getting confused on the draft during the chat last night. Second, this draft is much clearer, tighter, and captures the scope of the effort much better. Well done.

I do have a couple of questions/comments:


·         p. 4 – “An additional new power that gives the community a say in decisions about the IANA Functions Reviews and any separation of the IANA Names Functions.” I thought separation included Numbers and Protocol Parameters as well? Or is this assumed based on the different contractual arrangement between IETF, RIRs, and ICANN for these matters?

·         On the Engagement, Escalation, and Enforcement process, Note 2 says “the Board is required to put implementation of the contested

·         resolution on hold until the escalation process is completed. The purpose of this is to avoid requiring ICANN to undo things (if the rejection is approved), which could be potentially very difficult to undo.” This makes sense, but does this also apply to the enforcement process? It is not clear to me. If necessary, court proceedings can be lengthy.

·         P. 15 – Is the intent of bullet two to skip the Community Forum process unless 3 SOs or ACs support having one? It currently states: “3 SOs or ACs have to support holding a Community Forum. If the threshold is not met the process moves to approving using the Power to approve Changes to the Fundamental Bylaw.”

·         P. 16 – FN 3, the Board must approve separation?

·         P. 18 – FN 4 is missing

·         P. 22 – Clarify, “Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, IF ANY, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Bylaw.”

·         P. 27 – Should Section 8 specify that ICANN will remain headquartered in California, not just the U.S., considering that California law was used to inform CCWG recommendations.

In addition, I don’t see specific mention of establishing an independent appeals process for DIDP decisions, which was to be included in WS1.  Am I just missing it? Is it in the RFR section? If so, it should explicitly state that the appeals would encompass to DIDP denials. I will note, however, that this is not an independent process.

Finally, I was glad to see the reference to thresholds on p. 9. I think the Nov. 30 draft should flesh out this issue based on differing numbers of participating SOs and ACs and that the CCWG should seek confirmation of participation of the SOs and ACs in the “empowered Community” (acknowledging that this is not a commitment of support or endorsement of the final CCWG proposal) between now and Nov. 30.

Best,

Brett


________________________________
Brett Schaefer
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/>
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 9:40 AM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] 17 UTC deadline for final edits

Dear all,
As announced on your call #67, this is to kindly remind you that final edits on the attached draft Formal Update (circulated on 12 November) are needed by 17:00 UTC today.
As indicated on the call, no line edits will be taken into account. Co-Chairs are asking for content related comments.
Per the note below, any format, font and proofreading issues are being addressed by a professional writer.
Thank you,
Best regards
Alice
From: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, November 13, 2015 12:04 AM
To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call

All,

As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting.

The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist.

This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on.

We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments.

Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG

for the CCWG Co-chairs.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151113/b8e0540c/attachment-0001.html>