[CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin

Tue Oct 13 16:57:55 UTC 2015

When you join a process 10 months into it, you should not expect people to react well to your request that they revisit issues settled some time ago.

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

From: Ron Baione [mailto:ron.baione at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 12:26 PM
To: Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>; paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin

This is a general question to the group, in your view, what percentage of responses to this email list contain new ideas for real progress and what percentage of responses are clarifications and confusion on what ICANN's situation currently is? Is it that we are so far along in the process that the only thing to do is wait on the ideas already proposed? I expected people on the list to be saying, "lets try it this way" or "what about this idea", I haven't seen that said once. 

Ron

  _____  

From: Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net> >; 
To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> >; <accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> >; 
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin 
Sent: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 7:32:05 AM 

It's not for me to interpret the Joint Statement as I was no part of its 
drafting.

The statement was prepared jointly by the HLIG and CENTR and it was 
offered to the joint meeting as a draft. It was then adopted without 
even minor typographical or stylistic changes.

Statements published public authorities, or together involving public 
authorities are necessarily guarded, in general.

So I would hesitate to give you an answer to your question with 100.1% 
certainty.

However, personally speaking, I did indeed find the proposed statement 
"powerful" (as you put it), and my comments upon seeing it for the first 
time, expressed in the meeting at the time, were that it needed no changes.

I trust this helps?

Nigel

PS: Personally I am mildly less than enamoured of the CCWG-A proposal 
myself (the "single member idea"), but I remain terribly disturbed that 
the Board appears to think -- to paraphrase myself -- that it is 
entitled to yap subsequent to canine purchase.

On 13/10/15 02:18, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
> Nigel
>
> Help us who weren't there read between the lines -- is this the HLIG saying that the CCWG-A proposal is more to be respected than th
e Boards MEM revision.  That is how I read it, which would be powerful, 
but I don't want to overstate it if that is an inaccurate interpretation
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com <javascript:return> 
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> Link to my PGP Key
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel at channelisles.net <javascript:return> ]
> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 4:21 AM
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org <javascript:return> 
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin
>
> Enforceability was a key theme I heard at the European's Commission's HLIG at the CENTR meeting in Brussels.
>
> They also said:
>> We wish to reiterate our support to the Cross-Community Working Group on the IANA Stewardship Transition (CWG) and to the work of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG).
>
> and that
>
>> The outcome will only have the necessary legitimacy if the bottom-up, consensus-driven process continues to be fully respected.
>
>
> http://www.domainpulp.com/icann/centr-and-commission-meet-and-discuss-icann-accountability/
>
>
>
> On 11/10/15 08:56, Matthew Shears wrote:
>> Thanks for circulating this Grace.
>>
>> I would certainly support - _and believe it should be a priority for
>> Dublin_ - having a very clear understanding (in chart form or other)
>> of the enforcement mechanisms for each of the powers under the SMM,
>> Designator and MEM models as noted in the second bullet in the Action
>> for lawyers section below.  Hopefully much of this has analysis been
>> done and won't take to much additional work.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> On 08/10/2015 18:14, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Briefing with Counsel
>>> for Plan B Proposal Meeting  - Thursday 8 October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC
>>>
>>>  will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/BahYAw
>>>
>>> A copy of the notes may be found below.
>>>
>>> AC room recording:
>>> <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p46pejy7tf3/>https://icann.adobeconne
>>> ct.com/p46pejy7tf3/
>>>
>>>
>>> *Briefing with Counsel for Plan B Proposal Meeting  - Thursday 8
>>> October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC*
>>>
>>>
>>> *Attendees in AC room: *
>>>
>>> CCWG: Steve DelBianco; Jonathan Zuck; Kavouss Arasteh
>>>
>>> Counsel: Ingrid Mittermaier; Michael Clark; Rosemary Fei (and Ed
>>> McNicholas and Holly Gregory on the phone line only)
>>>
>>>
>>> *Notes:*
>>>
>>>
>>> Today's discussion revolves around the text here:
>>> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-Oc
>>> tober/006125.html>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-
>>> community/2015-October/006125.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kavouss added an edit (underlined here):
>>>
>>> 1. Power to block a proposed Operating Plan/Strat Plan/Budget with
>>> limitation on rejection/ Veto ( maximum 3 times )
>>>
>>> 2. Power to approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws and Articles of
>>> Incorporation.
>>>
>>> 3. Power to block changes to  standard Blaws.
>>>
>>> 4. Power to appoint and remove individual board Directors possibly
>>> with the approval of the entire community
>>>
>>> 5. Power to recall the entire board of Directors
>>>
>>> 6. Mechanism for binding IRP where a panel decision is enforceable in
>>> any court recognizing international arbitration results — even if
>>> ICCANNs Board refused to participate in the binding arbitration.
>>> (assuming  CCWG lawyers verify this works without activating a
>>> Membership model)
>>>
>>> All decision taken on the above would require consensus , without
>>> more than two Advice against that ( non-voting of ACs)
>>>
>>> I think we are close enough to get consensus around the above powers
>>> before we leave Dublin.  And based on what weâ€™ve heard recently,
>>> the board will support the powers described above.
>>>
>>>
>>> *Action for Steve/Jonathan: *revise chart per call discussions (MEM /
>>> Single Designator / Single Member) and send to lawyers before they
>>> can proceed with their work.
>>>
>>>
>>> *Actions for lawyers*:
>>>
>>>    * Assess level of effort to do 2-part project as follows:
>>>    * Part 1: completing the chart shown in AC. The chart shows the 6
>>>      Powers and their enforcement in Board's MEM (within Bylaws),
>>>      Designator, Sole Member. For first pass, only do each of the  3 as
>>>      described. (If there is extra time, the lawyers can study options
>>>      for personhood for SO/ACs in the models).
>>>    * Part 2: Plan B design and lockdown
>>>
>>>
>>> Lawyers would like for this to be a priority if this needs to be
>>> ready by Dublin.
>>>
>>>
>>> The more the documents can look simpler, the better. Minimal change
>>> is preferred.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:return> 
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>> --
>>
>> Matthew Shears
>> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for
>> Democracy & Technology mshears at cdt.org <javascript:return> 
>> + 44 771 247 2987
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>     
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com>  <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:return> 
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:return> 
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:return> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151013/645f8c0d/attachment.html>