<p dir="ltr">Becky wrote:<br>
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 –<i> and isn’t that what it means for the </i><i>IRP</i><i> to be binding</i>?</p>
<p dir="ltr">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).</p>
<p dir="ltr">That said, I guess what needs clarification is what Becky has rightly indicated:<br>
"...where the justification for the use of this community power is something other than a violation of the Bylaws or Articles..."</p>
<p dir="ltr">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. </p>
<p dir="ltr">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. </p>
<p dir="ltr">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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards </p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 16 Feb 2016 5:57 p.m., "Burr, Becky" <<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<div>
<div>
<div>Brett,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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 –<i> and isn’t that what it means for the IRP to be binding</i>?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>Bruce – I think we need clarification from you as to the Board’s intent</b>. 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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Becky</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt"><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"><a href="tel:%2B1.202.533.2932" value="+12025332932" target="_blank">+1.202.533.2932</a>
</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"><a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367" value="+12023526367" target="_blank">+1.202.352.6367</a>
<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" target="_blank"><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"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span>
<div style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:11pt;text-align:left;color:black;BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-LEFT:0in;PADDING-RIGHT:0in;BORDER-TOP:#b5c4df 1pt solid;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;PADDING-TOP:3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span><Schaefer>, Brett <<a href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org" target="_blank">Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 9:38 AM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Becky Burr <<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a>>, "<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" target="_blank">egmorris1@toast.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" target="_blank">egmorris1@toast.net</a>>, Paul Rosenzweig
<<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>, "<a href="mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org" target="_blank">brenda.brewer@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org" target="_blank">brenda.brewer@icann.org</a>>, Accountability
Community <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>RE: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #84 - Tuesday, 16 February @ 06:00 UTC<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div lang="EN-US" link="#9D454F" vlink="#814E95" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Becky,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">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.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">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. <u></u>
<u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Thanks,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Brett
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div></div>
</div>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<hr align="left" color="#58595b" width="200">
<span style="font-size:x-small;color:#004b8d;font-weight:bold">Brett</span><span style="font-size:x-small;color:#004b8d;font-weight:bold"></span><span style="font-size:x-small;color:#004b8d;font-weight:bold">Schaefer</span><span style="font-size:x-small;color:#58595b;font-weight:normal;font-style:italic"><br>
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs</span><span style="font-size:x-small;color:#58595b;font-weight:normal;font-style:italic"></span><span style="font-size:x-small;color:#58595b;font-weight:normal;font-style:italic"><br>
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy</span><br>
<font color="#58595b" size="2">The Heritage Foundation<br>
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br>
Washington, DC 20002</font><span style="font-size:x-small;color:#58595b"><br>
202-608-6097</span><br>
<font color="#004b8d" size="2"><a style="COLOR:#004b8d;TEXT-DECORATION:none" href="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=" target="_blank">heritage.org</a><br>
<span style="font-size:x-small"></span><span style="font-size:x-small"></span>
<p></p>
</font>
<p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif;color:windowtext">
<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Burr, Becky<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 15, 2016 2:22 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" target="_blank">egmorris1@toast.net</a>; Paul Rosenzweig; Brenda Brewer; CCWG-Accountability<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #84 - Tuesday, 16 February @ 06:00 UTC<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Not sure that Board comments are being fast tracked, but considered<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">You are correct Ed, that the requirement to bring an IRP first could only apply where there are grounds to invoke an IRP<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt">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"><a href="tel:%2B1.202.533.2932" value="+12025332932" target="_blank">+1.202.533.2932</a>
</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"><a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367" value="+12023526367" target="_blank">+1.202.352.6367</a>
</span><strong><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(125,125,125)">/</span></strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#068658"></span><a href="http://www.neustar.biz" target="_blank"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#008656">neustar.biz</span></b></a><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Edward Morris <<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" target="_blank">egmorris1@toast.net</a>><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b>"<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" target="_blank">egmorris1@toast.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" target="_blank">egmorris1@toast.net</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:08 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>, "<a href="mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org" target="_blank">brenda.brewer@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org" target="_blank">brenda.brewer@icann.org</a>>,
Accountability Community <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>, Becky Burr <<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #84 - Tuesday, 16 February @ 06:00 UTC<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Hi Becky,</span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">I have two concerns here that I hope those with expertise in these specific areas can help me put to rest:</span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">?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? </span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">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 <strong><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">when</span></strong>
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). </span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">?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.</span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">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?</span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">?</span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Best,</span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Ed Morris </span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">From</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">: "Burr, Becky" <<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>><br>
<b>Sent</b>: Monday, February 15, 2016 6:26 PM<br>
<b>To</b>: "Paul Rosenzweig" <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>, "Brenda Brewer" <<a href="mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org" target="_blank">brenda.brewer@icann.org</a>>, "CCWG-Accountability" <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject</b>: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #84 - Tuesday, 16 February @ 06:00 UTC</span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Paul - <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">That said, I agree we should discuss the proposal on our call tomorrow.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Becky<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt">J. Beckwith Burr</span></b><br>
<b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#008656">Neustar, Inc.</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7d7d7d">/</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7d7d7d">Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer<br>
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006</span><br>
<b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#008656">Office:</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7d7d7d"><a href="tel:%2B1.202.533.2932" value="+12025332932" target="_blank">+1.202.533.2932</a>
</span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#008656">Mobile:</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7d7d7d"><a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367" value="+12023526367" target="_blank">+1.202.352.6367</a>
</span><strong><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(125,125,125)">/</span></strong><a href="http://www.neustar.biz" target="_blank"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#008656">neustar.biz</span></b></a><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:43 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>"<a href="mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org" target="_blank">brenda.brewer@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org" target="_blank">brenda.brewer@icann.org</a>>, Accountability Community <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #84 - Tuesday, 16 February @ 06:00 UTC<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;border:1pt solid windowtext;padding:0in"><img border="0" width="100" height="100" src="cid:~WRD000.jpg" alt="Image removed by sender."></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Dear Co-Chairs</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">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 …</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Paul</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Paul Rosenzweig</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563c1">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660" target="_blank">+1 (202) 547-0660</a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650" target="_blank">+1 (202) 329-9650</a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" value="+12027381739" target="_blank">+1 (202) 738-1739</a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><a href="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=" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563c1">Link
to my PGP Key</span></a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="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=" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);border:1pt solid windowtext;padding:0in;text-decoration:none"><img border="0" width="578" height="87" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D1689D.A7589690" alt="Image removed by sender."></span></a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><u></u><u></u></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:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:windowtext"> Brenda Brewer [<a href="mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 15, 2016 8:03 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> CCWG-Accountability <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #84 - Tuesday, 16 February @ 06:00 UTC</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Dear all,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">In preparation for your call
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#c00000"><a href="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=" target="_blank"><span style="color:#c00000">#84</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
– Tuesday, </span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:windowtext">16 February
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">2016 </span>
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:windowtext">at 06:00 – 08:00 UTC
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">(<a href="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=" target="_blank">time
converter</a>), see below a proposed agenda:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:.75in"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">1.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black">
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">Opening Remarks</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.75in"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">2.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black">
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">Comments on Supplementary Report</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.75in"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">3.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black">
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">Budget</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.75in"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">4.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black">
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">AOC</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Adobe Connect:
</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(38,38,38)"><a href="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=" target="_blank">https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/
</a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Thank you!</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Kind regards,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Brenda</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#262626"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>