<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
+ 1 <br>
<br>
Thanks Becky. It really is time to agree this and move on.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 05/02/2016 10:34, Paul Rosenzweig
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:023901d16043$e73e9a50$b5bbcef0$@redbranchconsulting.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<title>Information Security Program Charter</title>
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
        {font-family:"Cambria Math";
        panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
        {font-family:Calibri;
        panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
        {margin:0in;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:12.0pt;
        font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:blue;
        text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:purple;
        text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
        {mso-style-type:personal-reply;
        font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
        color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
        {mso-style-type:export-only;
        font-size:10.0pt;
        font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
        {size:8.5in 11.0in;
        margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
        {page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Very much +1. Well
said Becky.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">P<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Paul Rosenzweig<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com"><span
style="color:#0563C1"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a></span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">O: +1 (202)
547-0660<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">M: +1 (202)
329-9650<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">VOIP: +1 (202)
738-1739<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Skype:
paul.rosenzweig1066<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9"><span
style="color:#0563C1">Link to my PGP Key</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;text-decoration:none"><img
id="Picture_x0020_7"
src="cid:part3.05010202.03030004@cdt.org" border="0"
height="87" width="578"></span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"> Burr, Becky
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, February 5, 2016 1:03 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Accountability Community
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"><accountability-cross-community@icann.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CCWG-ACCT] Responses to Rafael's
Questions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">I</span><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black"> am going to attempt to
respond to Rafael’s questions, below. This is a long
post, so apologies in advance. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black">I’d like to start out by
saying that my proposal does not in any way prevent the
GAC from participating in any community discussion
whatsoever, or from continuing to provide advice on public
policy matters whenever and however it chooses. Rather,
the compromise would limit the GAC’s ability to
participate as a <i>decision-maker</i> in the very
limited situation in which the community takes exception
to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and a
community discussion is initiated to explore use of a
community power to challenge the Board’s action. Even in
those limited situations where the carve out would apply,
the GAC is still able to participate in discussion, to
engage in advocacy, to persuade, to issue more advice,
etc. The only impact is that at the end of the day the
GAC would not count towards the thresholds necessary to
block or support exercise of the relevant power. So
please, do not say that anyone is trying to silence the
GAC or to in any way limit its current authority. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black">Rafael’s questions appear
in </span><i><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:blue">blue italic</span></i><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black"> below, and my answers
follow:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in">
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:blue">1. We
have previously discussed it, but we still fail to
understand why this “carve-out” is only applicable
to the GAC. If this measure is foreseen to avoid
the “two-bites-at-the-apple” situation, for
instance the GNSO is as well in a position of
being “judge and part” when it comes to decisions
of the Board based on a PDP. In these cases, the
GNSO is part (has proposed a policy and the Board
has accepted it) and judge (through its
participation in the EC, it can participate
through its vote in the rejecting of the challenge
to this policy). This situation is unfair to the
rest of SO/ACs. What are the reasons for such a
privilege? In this vein, although the GAC has a
“mutually agreeable procedure to TRY to find a
solution”, it CANNOT force the Board to act
according to its advice, therefore a Board
decision based on GAC Advice is as free as a Board
decision based on GNSO or CCNSO PDP or GNSO
Guidance (all three with a 2/3 threshold for
rejection by ICANN Board). Why is the GAC singled
out then?</span></i><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I have
previously explained this, as have others on the calls
and in the chat. My previous response follows. The
fact is that the Board’s obligation to work to try to
find a mutually agreeable solution before rejecting GAC
Advice gives the GAC both a formidable and unique power
to stop a process in its tracks and compel the Board to
negotiate. The fact that in the end a mutually
acceptable solution may not be found does not change the
nature of that power. And GAC advice is not
constrained in any material way – it can involve any
topic with “public policy” implications, and it can be
issued at any time before, during, or after a policy
development process has concluded, and indeed midway
during implementation of such policy. No other SO or AC
has that authority. <b>The GAC is singled out because
it, and it alone, has this authority.</b> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">My
previous response to this same question from Jorge
follows:</span></b><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Jorge asks
why I am drawing a distinction between GAC Advice and
the output (e.g., a policy developed through a PDP) of a
supporting organization or this new “GNSO Guidance." The
differences between a PDP (or Guidance on implementation
of a PDP) and GAC Advice are both structural and
substantive. In short, the process for issuing GNSO
policy and guidance has built-in safeguards to prevent
Mission creep and promote transparency and public
consultation. For many reasons, including some that I
consider entirely appropriate, that’s not the case with
GAC Advice. </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">On the one
hand, the GAC can give Advice </span><i><span
style="color:blue">on any topic</span></i><span
style="color:black"> it likes. Yes, technically it must
relate to “public policy” - but as we know that is a
very broad concept. The GAC can also give that Advice </span><i><span
style="color:blue">at any time</span></i><span
style="color:black"> it likes - before, during, or well
after a PDP or even the Board’s acceptance of a PDP.
There is no rule that says that GAC Advice must relate
to a topic within ICANN’s Mission or that such Advice
must be consistent with ICANN’s Bylaws. Both the
flexibility with respect to topic and timing mean that
GAC Advice can be disruptive to ongoing policy
development and/or implementation. And, under Rec. 11 as
currently proposed, the Board must accept that Advice
unless 66% of the Board opposes it. That’s the case no
matter what that Advice is and </span><i><span
style="color:blue">even if a majority of the Board
thinks it would violate ICANN’s Bylaws to implement
that Advice</span></i><span style="color:black">. </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">A PDP, on the
other hand, takes place in a highly structured
environment that is strictly controlled both by subject
matter and sequencing. Even before the PDP really gets
off the ground it is subject to review by ICANN’s
General Counsel as to whether or not it is within
ICANN’s Mission. That is a critical structural
safeguard against scope creep that distinguishes a PDP
from GAC Advice. </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">The PDP
process is highly structured, with numerous safeguards
that protect against scope creep and ensure
transparency:</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">a. Final
Issue Report requested by the Board, the GNSO Council
("Council") or Advisory Committee. The issue report must
affirmatively address the following issues:</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in"><span
style="color:black">The proposed issue raised for
consideration;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in"><span
style="color:black">The identity of the party submitting
the request for the Issue Report;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in"><span
style="color:black">How that party is affected by the
issue, if known;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in"><span
style="color:black">Support for the issue to initiate
the PDP, if known;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in"><span
style="color:black">The opinion of the ICANN General
Counsel regarding whether the issue proposed for
consideration within the Policy Development Process is
properly within the scope of the ICANN's mission, policy
process and more specifically the role of the GNSO as
set forth in the Bylaws.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in"><span
style="color:black">The opinion of ICANN Staff as to
whether the Council should initiate the PDP on the issue<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">b. Formal
initiation of the Policy Development Process by the
Council;</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">c. Formation
of a Working Group or other designated work method;</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">d. Initial
Report produced by a Working Group or other designated
work method;</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">e. Final
Report produced by a Working Group, or other designated
work method, and forwarded to the Council for
deliberation;</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">f. Council
approval of PDP Recommendations contained in the Final
Report, by the required thresholds;</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">g. PDP
Recommendations and Final Report shall be forwarded to
the Board through a Recommendations Report approved by
the Council]; and</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">h. Board
approval of PDP Recommendations.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in">
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:blue">2. If
this “carve-out” were to be accepted, how would
the exclusion of the GAC from a community
decision-making process be triggered? Who would
decide on such things? Who would control the
legality of such a decision? The carve-out refers
generically to “Board decisions” to “implement GAC
advice”. But we need to bear in mind that Board
decisions very often rely on many different inputs
for any decision (a PDP, advice from advisory
committees, including the GAC, legal advice,
etc.), and rarely only stem exclusively from GAC
advice. Would this “carve-out” mean that where
there is a Board decision based on such multiple
sources, only one of them being a GAC advice, the
GAC would be excluded from any community power
related to such a Board decision? How do we make
sure that if such a “carve-out” is accepted it has
not these effects, and ONLY applies when the Board
acts based ONLY on GAC advice?</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">This seems
fairly straightforward. The GAC keeps a “scorecard”
regarding the Board’s handling of GAC Advice. GAC
Advice is listed and tracked. ICANN tracks its
responses formally. See, for example, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gac-advice-scorecard-07oct15-en.pdf"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gac-advice-scorecard-07oct15-en.pdf">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gac-advice-scorecard-07oct15-en.pdf</a></a>.
To the extent that other organizations have provided
similar advice, they have not had the opportunity to
compel the Board to the negotiation table with respect
to that advice. In such cases, they could still
participate in the decision making process in an effort
to block exercise of a community power challenging the
Board’s implementation of GAC Advice if, for example,
they happened to agree with that Advice and/or thought
the way the Board implemented that Advice was
appropriate, etc. </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in">
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:blue">3. What
happens if a Board decision is based on GAC advice
which in turn is based on international law,
relevant national law and/or important reasons of
public policy? We should remember that under Rec11
GAC will be obliged to act under a “no formal
objection rule” (full consensus). Should the
community be able to overturn such a Board
decision without giving the possibility to the GAC
to intervene in such a process (based on a GAC
consensus)?</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">It is not the
case now, nor has it ever been the case that the
position of the GAC will prevail simply because it
asserts that its views are mandated by international
law, relevant national law, and/or important reasons of
public policy. </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Now, and in
the future, the Board must make this call in the first
instance, subject to applicable law and in light of
ICANN’s Mission, Commitments & Core Values. If
enough of the community thinks the Board got it wrong,
it has the right to challenge the Board’s implementation
action – e.g., by rejecting a proposed Bylaws change, by
bringing an IRP, or ultimately, by recalling the Board.
Throughout this, the Board, the GAC, SOs, other ACs,
etc. will have the opportunity to make their respective
cases. The thresholds for the exercise of community
powers have been deliberately set to require broad
support. </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Let me repeat
again what I said at the outset – nothing prevents the
GAC from “intervening” through debate, discussion,
persuasion, advice or any other non-decisional role. </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;color:black">J. Beckwith Burr</span></b><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#262626"> </span></b><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#3366FF"><br>
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#008656">Neustar,
Inc.</span></b><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#068658"> </span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7D7D7D">/</span><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#068658"> </span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7D7D7D">Deputy General
Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer<br>
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;color:gray"><br>
</span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#008656">Office:</span></b><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7D7D7D"> </span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7D7D7D">+1.202.533.2932 </span><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#008656">Mobile:</span></b><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7D7D7D"> </span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7D7D7D">+1.202.352.6367 </span><strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#7D7D7D">/</span></strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#068658"> </span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.neustar.biz"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#008656">neustar.biz</span></b></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org">mshears@cdt.org</a> | 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.</pre>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
        <tr>
                <td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
                        <a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">
                                <img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
                        </a>
                </td>
                <td>
                        <p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
                                This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
                                <br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
                        </p>
                </td>
        </tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>