[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #84 - Tuesday, 16 February @ 06:00 UTC
Matthew Shears
mshears at cdt.org
Tue Feb 16 18:12:57 UTC 2016
Yes, likewise.
On 2/16/2016 6:10 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> I agree with my colleagues above.
>
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> Robin
>
>> On Feb 16, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <tel:%2B1.202.533.2932>
>>> *Mobile:***+1.202.352.6367
>>> <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>*/**neustar.biz* <http://www.neustar.biz/>
>>>
>>>
>>> From:<Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org
>>> <mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>>
>>> Date:Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 9:38 AM
>>> To:Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz
>>> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, "egmorris1 at toast.net
>>> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>" <egmorris1 at toast.net
>>> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>, Paul Rosenzweig
>>> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>,
>>> "brenda.brewer at icann.org <mailto:brenda.brewer at icann.org>"
>>> <brenda.brewer at icann.org <mailto:brenda.brewer at icann.org>>,
>>> Accountability Community
>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>> <mailto: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 <tel: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>[mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:%2B1.202.533.2932>
>>> *Mobile:***+1.202.352.6367
>>> <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>*/**neustar.biz* <http://www.neustar.biz/>
>>>
>>> *From:*Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
>>> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>
>>> *Reply-To:*"egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>"
>>> <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>
>>> *Date:*Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:08 PM
>>> *To:*Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>,
>>> "brenda.brewer at icann.org <mailto:brenda.brewer at icann.org>"
>>> <brenda.brewer at icann.org <mailto:brenda.brewer at icann.org>>,
>>> Accountability Community
>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>, Becky Burr
>>> <becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>
>>> *Sent*: Monday, February 15, 2016 6:26 PM
>>> *To*: "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>, "Brenda
>>> Brewer" <brenda.brewer at icann.org
>>> <mailto:brenda.brewer at icann.org>>, "CCWG-Accountability"
>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>> <mailto: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 <tel:%2B1.202.533.2932>
>>> *Mobile:*+1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>*/**neustar.biz*
>>> <http://www.neustar.biz/>
>>>
>>> *From:*Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>
>>> *Date:*Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:43 AM
>>> *To:*"brenda.brewer at icann.org <mailto:brenda.brewer at icann.org>"
>>> <brenda.brewer at icann.org <mailto:brenda.brewer at icann.org>>,
>>> Accountability Community
>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
>>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
>>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
>>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>
>>> 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]
>>> *Sent:*Monday, February 15, 2016 8:03 AM
>>> *To:*CCWG-Accountability
>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>> <mailto: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 February2016at 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
>> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
--
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.
---
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://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160216/09621511/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list