[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #84 - Tuesday, 16 February @ 06:00 UTC

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Tue Feb 16 18:10:42 UTC 2016


I agree with my colleagues above.

Greg

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> +1
>
> Robin
>
> On Feb 16, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>
> My views echo yours, Becky. Thanks Brett for picking up on this.
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 16 Feb 2016, at 16:58, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:
>
> Brett,
>
> My support for the Board’s approach would be limited to cases where the
> community seeks to recall the Board because its implementation of GAC
> Advice violates the Bylaws or Articles.  In that case, I think that an IRP
> is the most appropriate, least disruptive approach.  I can live with the
> notion that the community would respect the final determination of an IRP
> in such cases –* and isn’t that what it means for the IRP to be binding*?
>
> If the community seeks to dump the Board based on its implementation of
> GAC Advice, but where the justification for the use of this community power
> is something other than a violation of the Bylaws or Articles, then, in my
> view, the lower threshold should apply and there should be no obligation to
> file an IRP (which, presumably, would be dismissed on standing grounds).
>
> *Bruce – I think we need clarification from you as to the Board’s intent*.
> One could read your proposal as an attempt to limit any use of the spill
> the Board power in response to the Board’s implementation to GAC Advice to
> situations where that implementation amounts to a violation of the
> Bylaws/Articles.  This reading would – at least theoretically – materially
> narrow the spill the board power.  So I think Brett is right on the
> principle.  But I also think the read I’ve proposed doesn’t really
> undermine the Board’s goal either, inasmuch as I believe that the community
> will be rightly reluctant to spill the Board in response to an
> action/inaction that is not alleged to violate the Bylaws/Articles.
>
> I suspect there are some details to be worked out on how you resolve a
> dispute between the Board and the community on whether a spill the Board
> effort is based on an action/inaction that can be reviewed under the IRP,
> but I don’t think they are insurmountable.
>
> Becky
>
>
>
> *J. Beckwith Burr*
> *Neustar, Inc.* / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
> *Office:* +1.202.533.2932  *Mobile:* +1.202.352.6367 */* *neustar.biz*
> <http://www.neustar.biz/>
>
> From: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
> Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 9:38 AM
> To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>, "egmorris1 at toast.net" <
> egmorris1 at toast.net>, Paul Rosenzweig <
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>, "brenda.brewer at icann.org" <
> brenda.brewer at icann.org>, Accountability Community <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #84 - Tuesday,
> 16 February @ 06:00 UTC
>
>
> Becky,
>
> The Board’s proposal seems to make it mandatory to go to an IRP even if
> the Board’s decision is clearly within the scope and mission of ICANN. In
> such a situation, the IRP would obviously fail and the EC would no longer
> have the option of exercising its final enforcement power of spilling the
> Board at the lower threshold and without the GAC being a decisional
> participant even though the original Board Decision was based on consensus
> GAC advice. As I mentioned last night in my semi-slumber, this would be, in
> my mind, a loophole to the GAC carve out.
>
> Could you point me to the section of the Board’s proposal that says that
> “the requirement to bring an IRP first could only apply where there are
> grounds to invoke an IRP”? If that is the case, then my concerns are
> greatly lessened.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brett
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ANeRTe-I8qDbF8eBmNEbzcnXl3Vg4-j2oIX8DP8C9Oc&s=uH4aMbc1vPkxvuz-q6wk3j46bJ8NKu0br5GqjwQdr04&e=>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Burr,
> Becky
> *Sent:* Monday, February 15, 2016 2:22 PM
> *To:* egmorris1 at toast.net; Paul Rosenzweig; Brenda Brewer;
> CCWG-Accountability
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #84 -
> Tuesday, 16 February @ 06:00 UTC
>
> Not sure that Board comments are being fast tracked, but considered
>
> You are correct Ed, that the requirement to bring an IRP first could only
> apply where there are grounds to invoke an IRP
>
>
> *J. Beckwith Burr*
> *Neustar, Inc.*/Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
> *Office:*+1.202.533.2932  *Mobile:*+1.202.352.6367 */**neustar.biz*
> <http://www.neustar.biz/>
>
> *From: *Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
> *Reply-To: *"egmorris1 at toast.net" <egmorris1 at toast.net>
> *Date: *Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:08 PM
> *To: *Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>, "
> brenda.brewer at icann.org" <brenda.brewer at icann.org>, Accountability
> Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>, Becky Burr <
> becky.burr at neustar.biz>
> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #84 -
> Tuesday, 16 February @ 06:00 UTC
>
> Hi Becky,
>
> I have two concerns here that I hope those with expertise in
> these specific areas can help me put to rest:
>
>
> ?1. Why are these latest Board objections/proposals being fast tracked
> within the CCWG at the last minute? Did the Board not have ample
> opportunity to raise these issues during the normal and proper review of
> the third draft proposal? Is there something I'm missing here? My belief
> was that we're at the point of vetting the Supplemental for technical, not
> substantive, omissions and additions. Should not these Board objections now
> be included in a Minority Statement, rather than receiving preferential
> consideration by the entire CCWG? If the answer to that query is in the
> negative. that substantive revisions may still be adopted,  do not our
> rules mandate consideration at two meetings before any alteration to our
> proposal should occur?
>
> 2. I personally don't have a problem with requiring the community
> to invoke an IRP before spilling the Board when the reason for the recall
> was Board implementation of GAC advice *when* said advice is related to
> subject matter appropriate for an IRP panel to hear (generally, ICANN
> acting in a way outside its scope and/or not consistent with its Bylaws or
> Articles of Incorporation).
>
> ?What, though, of GAC consensus advice that is itself outside the scope of
> an IRP? I'm thinking of consensus GAC advice that is within ICANN's mission
> and scope, where there is no allegation of a Bylaws or Articles violations,
> yet whose approval by the Board triggers a community desire to spill the
> Board. An example could be something related to the delegation of a gTLD
> that, for some reason, has prompted GAC opposition. The IRP would not
> act affirmatively in this instance to any request to nullify the Board
> action because the reasons for the community opposition presumably lay
> outside the remit of an IRP. Do we then want the fact that the IRP refused
> to act, because it can't, to then raise the threshold by which Board
> spillage will occur?  I'm not sure that's wise.
>
> Of course, as Becky noted I don't anticipate this aspect of our proposal
>  will truly ever come into play. At least I hope its doesn't. That said, we
> need to design our structures as if it might and raising spill thresholds
> as a result of an IRP not making a substantive decision on an issue
> because said issue itself  is outside it's remit...do we really want to do
> this?
> ?
>
> Best,
>
> Ed Morris
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>
> *Sent*: Monday, February 15, 2016 6:26 PM
> *To*: "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>,
> "Brenda Brewer" <brenda.brewer at icann.org>, "CCWG-Accountability" <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject*: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #84 -
> Tuesday, 16 February @ 06:00 UTC
>
> Paul -
>
> Are you asking whether we will discuss the proposal that Bruce put on the
> table regarding the GAC carve out?  As I understand it, the proposal would
> apply only where Board recall was sought in response to Board
> implementation of GAC consensus advice and the GAC was thus precluded from
> participating in the EC as a decision maker.  In that situation, we reduced
> the requisite support level from 4 to 3 (to prevent requiring unanimity).
> I understand that reduction is a matter of concern to the Board.
>
> I personally don’t have a lot of trouble with the notion that the
> community would be required to invoke the IRP process before moving to
> recall the entire Board in that circumstance.  To be candid, my comfort
> reflects my belief that the Board recall power is nearly illusory, given
> how disruptive such a step would be.  I can’t imagine why one would choose
> recall over resort to the independent judiciary wherever possible.
>
> That said, I agree we should discuss the proposal on our call tomorrow.
>
> Becky
>
>
> *J. Beckwith Burr*
> *Neustar, Inc.*/Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
> *Office:*+1.202.533.2932  *Mobile:*+1.202.352.6367 */**neustar.biz*
> <http://www.neustar.biz/>
>
> *From: *Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
> *Date: *Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:43 AM
> *To: *"brenda.brewer at icann.org" <brenda.brewer at icann.org>, Accountability
> Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #84 -
> Tuesday, 16 February @ 06:00 UTC
>
> <~WRD000.jpg>
> Dear Co-Chairs
>
> Will the Board’s proposal re: further revisions to the EC process be
> discussed under Item #2?   I would hope that we would have full discussion
> of this proposed change, which I would be opposed to …
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> Link to my PGP Key
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_index.php-3Foption-3Dcom-5Fcontent-26view-3Darticle-26id-3D19-26Itemid-3D9&d=CwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=qBPnemYITx6kueIL18bxrc9F4DtlulGsPQBHsTLxddA&s=yxlfo3cikqNM7fdGQuF2YqyrEBfDPeg04DnYns4IJYQ&e=>
> <image001.jpg>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference.com_events_us16-3Futm-5Fsource-3Dsignature-26utm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fcampaign-3Dspeakers-2Dus2016&d=CwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=qBPnemYITx6kueIL18bxrc9F4DtlulGsPQBHsTLxddA&s=JMPdORxK3wByLyRUzqZb5hP6Vs1cUpe8E4-XJw647aE&e=>
>
> *From:* Brenda Brewer [mailto:brenda.brewer at icann.org
> <brenda.brewer at icann.org>]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 15, 2016 8:03 AM
> *To:* CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #84 - Tuesday, 16
> February @ 06:00 UTC
>
> Dear all,
> In preparation for your call #84
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_AAt1Aw&d=CwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=qBPnemYITx6kueIL18bxrc9F4DtlulGsPQBHsTLxddA&s=xiULrz46K1OoObnos_bGlMfxdPquJbQHeJzcL_G-EUc&e=>
>  – Tuesday, 16 February 2016 at 06:00 – 08:00 UTC (time converter
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.timeanddate.com_worldclock_fixedtime.html-3Fmsg-3DCCWG-2BACCT-2BMeeting-26iso-3D20160216T06-26p1-3D1440-26ah-3D2&d=CwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=qBPnemYITx6kueIL18bxrc9F4DtlulGsPQBHsTLxddA&s=XdhE8-GA1fTVJaK2o_KuRFTV-mLBJKRVFk3vJh1GUiA&e=>),
> see below a proposed agenda:
>
> 1.      Opening Remarks
>
> 2.      Comments on Supplementary Report
>
> 3.      Budget
>
> 4.      AOC
> *Adobe Connect: *https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.adobeconnect.com_accountability_&d=CwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=qBPnemYITx6kueIL18bxrc9F4DtlulGsPQBHsTLxddA&s=Quw_8Ddnv4yQaBrP4oNhI9wQ_lMv15Ww-HMlf25hX5w&e=>
>
> Thank you!
> Kind regards,
> Brenda
>
>
> <~WRD000.jpg>
>
> <image001.jpg>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160216/ec037343/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list