<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<link rel="File-List"><link rel="themeData"><style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:"?? ??"}
@font-face
{font-family:"cambria math"}
@font-face
{font-family:calibri}
@font-face
{font-family:cambria}
@font-face
{font-family:"avenir next regular"}
p.msonormal, li.msonormal, div.msonormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:cambria}
.msochpdefault
{font-family:cambria}
@page wordsection1
{margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in}
div.wordsection1
{}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div>Thank you Becky for kindly answering my questions, much appreciated.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I hope to get back to you with further comments as I proceed with internal consultations.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I only would like to draw your attention now to the fact that your proposal, in its broad scope now clearly defined (and apologies here if some of us understood that you were referring to a limited scope), is essentially different from the discussions
on ST 18 that we all have been having during the last year. This addition to the package is not related to percentages nor thresholds anymore, nor how the Board may react to GAC advice (remember this and only this was the reason why Steve del Bianco put forward
ST 18!!) , but goes far beyond, as it actually regulates the access of the GAC to the EC.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For that reason, I believe it should be very carefully analyzed and assessed, from an implementing and legal POV. Such a decision cannot be taken in a rush, without considering its consequences and possible side effects.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best</div>
<div>Rafael</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:9px">Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.</div>
<div>-------- Original message --------</div>
<div>From: "Burr, Becky" </div>
<div>Date:05/02/2016 19:04 (GMT+01:00) </div>
<div>To: Accountability Community </div>
<div>Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Responses to Rafael's Questions </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">I</span> am going to attempt to respond to Rafael’s questions, below. This is a long post, so apologies in advance. </div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">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. </div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Rafael’s questions appear in
</span><font color="#0000ff"><i>blue italic</i></font> below, and my answers follow:</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"> </div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="color:rgb(0,0,0); margin:0px 0px 0px 40px; border:none; padding:0px">
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px; border:none; padding:0px">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><font face="Calibri" size="3"><font color="#0000ff"><i>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?</i></font>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0); margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><font face="Calibri" size="3"> </font>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0); margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><font face="Calibri" size="3">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> </font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0); margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><font face="Calibri" size="3"><br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0); margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><b><font face="Calibri" size="3">My previous response to this same question from Jorge follows:</font></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0); margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><font face="Calibri" size="3"><br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Calibri" size="3">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.
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Calibri" size="3"> </font>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Calibri" size="3">On the one hand, the GAC can give Advice
<i><span style="color:blue">on any topic</span></i> 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
<i><span style="color:blue">at any time</span></i> 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
<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>.
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Calibri" size="3"> </font>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Calibri" size="3">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.
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Calibri" size="3"> </font>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Calibri" size="3">The PDP process is highly structured, with numerous safeguards that protect against scope creep and ensure transparency:
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Calibri" size="3"> </font>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Calibri" size="3">a. Final Issue Report requested by the Board, the GNSO Council ("Council") or Advisory Committee. The issue report must affirmatively address the following issues:</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0); margin-left:0.5in; text-indent:-0.5in">
<font face="Calibri" size="3"><span style="">•<span style="font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:normal">
</span></span>The proposed issue raised for consideration; </font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0); margin-left:0.5in; text-indent:-0.5in">
<font face="Calibri" size="3"><span style="">•<span style="font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:normal">
</span></span>The identity of the party submitting the request for the Issue Report;
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0); margin-left:0.5in; text-indent:-0.5in">
<font face="Calibri" size="3"><span style="">•<span style="font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:normal">
</span></span>How that party is affected by the issue, if known; </font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0); margin-left:0.5in; text-indent:-0.5in">
<font face="Calibri" size="3"><span style="">•<span style="font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:normal">
</span></span>Support for the issue to initiate the PDP, if known; </font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0); margin-left:0.5in; text-indent:-0.5in">
<font face="Calibri" size="3"><span style="">•<span style="font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:normal">
</span></span>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. </font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0); margin-left:0.5in; text-indent:-0.5in">
<font face="Calibri" size="3"><span style="">•<span style="font-style:normal; font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:normal">
</span></span>The opinion of ICANN Staff as to whether the Council should initiate the PDP on the issue
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Calibri" size="3">b.<span style=""> </span>Formal initiation of the Policy Development Process by the Council;
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Calibri" size="3">c.<span style="">
</span>Formation of a Working Group or other designated work method; </font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Calibri" size="3">d.<span style="">
</span>Initial Report produced by a Working Group or other designated work method;
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Calibri" size="3">e.<span style="">
</span>Final Report produced by a Working Group, or other designated work method, and forwarded to the Council for deliberation;
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Calibri" size="3">f.<span style="">
</span>Council approval of PDP Recommendations contained in the Final Report, by the required thresholds;
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Calibri" size="3">g.<span style="">
</span>PDP Recommendations and Final Report shall be forwarded to the Board through a Recommendations Report approved by the Council]; and
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Calibri" size="3">h.<span style="">
</span>Board approval of PDP Recommendations. </font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0); margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Calibri" size="3"> </font>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><font color="#0000ff" face="Calibri" size="3"><i><br>
</i></font></p>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px; border:none; padding:0px">
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px; border:none; padding:0px">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><font face="Calibri" size="3"><font color="#0000ff"><i>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?</i></font>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0); margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><font face="Calibri" size="3"><br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0); margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><font face="Calibri" size="3">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 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>. 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. </font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><i><font color="#0000ff" face="Calibri" size="3"><br>
</font></i></p>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px">
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><font face="Calibri" size="3"><i><font color="#0000ff">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)?</font></i><font> </font></font></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0); margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><font face="Calibri" size="3"> </font>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0); margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><font face="Calibri" size="3">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. </font> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0); margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><font face="Calibri" size="3"><br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0); margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><font face="Calibri" size="3">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. </font>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0); margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><font face="Calibri" size="3"><br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0); margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><font face="Calibri" size="3">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. </font> </p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0); margin-top:12pt"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0); font-size:14px; font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; margin-top:12pt">
<b><span style="font-size:9pt; line-height:115%">J. Beckwith Burr</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt; line-height:115%; color:#262626">
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; line-height:115%; color:#3366FF"><br>
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; line-height:115%; color:#008656">Neustar, Inc.</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; line-height:115%; color:#068658">
</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; line-height:115%; color:#7D7D7D">/</span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; line-height:115%; color:#068658">
</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; line-height:115%; color:#7D7D7D">Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer<br>
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt; line-height:115%; color:gray"><br>
</span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; line-height:115%; color:#008656">Office:</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; line-height:115%; color:#7D7D7D">
</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; line-height:115%; color:#7D7D7D">+1.202.533.2932
</span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; line-height:115%; color:#008656">Mobile:</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; line-height:115%; color:#7D7D7D">
</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; line-height:115%; color:#7D7D7D">+1.202.352.6367
<strong><span style="font-family:Arial">/</span></strong></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt; line-height:115%; color:#068658">
</span><a href="http://www.neustar.biz"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; line-height:115%; color:#008656">neustar.biz</span></b></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt; line-height:115%; color:gray">
</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>