[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #84 - Tuesday, 16 February @ 06:00 UTC
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Tue Feb 16 18:59:24 UTC 2016
+1as well
--
Paul Rosenzweig
Sent from myMail app for Android Tuesday, 16 February 2016, 01:12PM -05:00 from Matthew Shears < mshears at cdt.org> :
>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 > 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
>>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>From: 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 ;
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
>>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>>O: +1
(202) 547-0660
>>>>>M: +1
(202) 329-9650
>>>>>VOIP: +1
(202) 738-1739
>>>>>Skype:
paul.rosenzweig1066
>>>>>Link to my PGP Key
>>>>><image001.jpg>
>>>>>
>>>>>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 >
>>>>>Subject: [CCWG-ACCT]
CCWG ACCT
Proposed Agenda
- Call #84 -
Tuesday, 16
February @ 06:00
UTC
>>>>>
>>>>>Dear all,
>>>>>In preparation for
your call #84 –
Tuesday, 16
February 2016 at
06:00 – 08:00 UTC ( time
converter ),
see below a proposed
agenda:
>>>>>1. Opening Remarks
>>>>>2. Comments on
Supplementary Report
>>>>>3. Budget
>>>>>4. AOC
>>>>>Adobe
Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/
>>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
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 sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
>www.avast.com
>_______________________________________________
>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/ba6817f0/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list