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

Tue Feb 16 19:34:07 UTC 2016

Becky wrote:
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*
?

SO: +1 on this but I also expect that irrespective of whether it's board
action on GAC or not, a call to spill the board as a result of violation of
bylaw/articles would normally go through IRP. Isn't that why we had the
option 1 in the first place(as it predates the current GAC discussion).

That said, I guess what needs clarification is what Becky has rightly
indicated:
"...where the justification for the use of this community power is
something other than a violation of the Bylaws or Articles..."

I think that is where option 2(with all its escalation in-place prior to
the spill act) would be applicable. The justification referred does not
apply just to board action on GAC advice but actually to any board
action/inaction as described in the report.

I am always of the opinion that it is a good thing to let GAC defend itself
by also adding her "consensus" based support. However, since we have gotten
past that stage, I would just hope that the 3(minimum) support would be
sufficient enough to be representative of the community. Otherwise,
considering that GAC is out of the loop, I would have said leaving the
threshold at 4 would have still been the best thing to do.

I understand the CCWG took a no-unanimous principle (even though it's not
in the charter), but considering that one part of the community is out of
the ban/decision makers, it's really not unanimous in this context.

Overall as it's been said, this is very much an unlikely scenario. If we
get to the stage of spilling the board then most likely the technical
operators would have figured a way to communicate independent of ICANN root.

Regards
On 16 Feb 2016 5:57 p.m., "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
>
>
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
>
> 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=>
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
> <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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/cc1521f6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD000.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160216/cc1521f6/WRD000-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 934 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160216/cc1521f6/image001-0001.jpg>