[Area 1] [Party2] Doodle Poll and Docs for ACCT WP2

Tue Feb 24 21:01:51 UTC 2015

*Dear Becky*

*Dear co.chairs*

*Dear All,*

*On the conference call on 24 Feb Becky casts doubt about the  GAC ADV9ICE
PERSIAN Gulf string*

*She said GAC ADVICE on Persian Gulf .She stated that GAC did not conclude
on that SRING  *

*I wish to reproduce the paragraph 3 from GAC Durban Communique*

*Quote *

* 3. .date and .persiangulf (ref. Beijing Communiqué 1.c.) **a. The GAC has
finalised its consideration of the following strings, and does not object
to them proceeding: i. .date (application number 1-1247-30301) *

*ii. .persiangulf (application number 1-2128-55439) *

*Unquote*

I therefore request my respectful Becjy to carefully read that advice with
a vir

ew to reconsider her position made at thart call conference

This should be corrected when minute is appropoved$

I ask Grace and others to incluse the content of this message in the
minutes as I did indicate at the meerting

Sorry and regret that point was raised .

Kavouss

2015-02-24 18:04 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>:

> As I was not at ICANN52, I missed that in the back and forth.  I am, of
> course, delighted that we get to write the standard!!  More power to me!
> [That's a joke friends!]
>
> More seriously, then, if we are to write the standard, we will want to very
> carefully define the scopoe of ICANN activity ..... should be interesting
> work
> P
>
> 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
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 11:37 AM
> To: Malcolm Hutty; Paul Rosenzweig; wp2 at icann.org
> Cc: 'Thomas Rickert'
> Subject: Re: [Party2] Doodle Poll and Docs for ACCT WP2
>
> With respect to our task, Jordan and I have chatted and agreed that the
> standard falls into our work stream
>
>
> J. Beckwith Burr
> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
> Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  /
> becky.burr at neustar.biz
> / www.neustar.biz
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2/24/15, 11:34 AM, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On 24/02/2015 15:24, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
> >> Colleagues
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Let me get this started with a very simple statement of four
> >> principles that I think must be incorporated in any
> >> redress/accountability proposal
> >
> >Paul,
> >
> >Thank you for kicking the discussion off with from such a thoughtful
> >starting point.
> >
> >It prompts some immediate reactions on my part.
> >
> >
> >> First, a standard is essential.  That is the limiting function that
> >> defines what it is that ICANN and/or the Board may do and what, in
> >> turn, they may not do.
> >
> >I agree, and saw the presentation from Becky at ICANN52 as starting
> >that discussion very helpfully. I was therefore rather surprised to see
> >you write this:
> >
> >>  I suspect that the actual content of that standard is not for WP2 to
> >> determine (for myself I want it as narrow as possible).
> >> That standard will come from elsewhere (WP1, CCWG, or CWG) as those
> >> processes move forward.
> >
> >From Becky's presentation, I had understood that this WP2 would
> >absolutely be considering the standard. If that's not the case, I think
> >we need to flag up to the Co-Chairs the need for urgent clarification
> >of where this discussion ought to take place - perhaps a WP3
> >specifically on that question?
> >
> >I think we can rule out CWG-Stewardship; they have explicitly ruled
> >most of this out of scope for their group.
> >
> >>  Our task is to insure that a) such standards are formulated; and b)
> >> that they are formulated in a manner that is capable of  that
> >> adjudication.  Our input should be to make the terms of the standard
> >> as well-defined as drafters are capable of.
> >
> >Agree.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Second, our biggest difficulty, in my judgment, will be in defining
> >> who is an ³affected party.²  As we have seen in the broader debate
> >> over ³public interest² in some sense everyone in the world is an
> affected
> >> party.  That, of course, is untenable.   We need to give some definition
> >> as to who has ³standing² (that¹s an American legal phrase reflecting
> >> who may bring a suit) to initiate a complaint.  My instinct is to
> >> allow it to be a) both directly affected parties  that is people
> >> with contracts and/or commercial interests in the IANA function; and
> >> b) certain representative organizations can reflect the broader
> >> interests of certain constituencies.  These may or may not be the
> >> existing SO/AC types.  An area I think needs some real consideration
> >
> >I disagree with your claim that it is untenable to grant standing to
> >any party materially affected by an ICANN decision or action.
> >
> >I also don't believe it is at all acceptable to limit standing to
> >contracted parties: that is one of the major flaws in the existing IRP
> >provisions that needs to be corrected. Non-contracted parties have
> >legitimate interests too. For example, inasmuch as non-contracted
> >parties are consulted by ICANN in its decision-making and policy
> >formulation, they equally have an interest in ICANN following its own
> >procedures and bylaws. For another, I believe you and I share the view
> >that a major concern is the possibilibility of scope creep by ICANN
> >resulting in a negative impact other parties' interests without any
> >legitimate authority to do so: non-contracted parties (and especially,
> >registrants) are absolutely as interested in that as contracted ones.
> >
> >Let me give you a scenario. Suppose that ICANN deciding that fishing
> >was
> >bad: fish stocks are heavily depleted and fishing is harming the
> >environment and leading to species extinction. In support of that view,
> >ICANN consensus policy determines that no domains should be registered
> >that promoted fishing or the consumption of fish. This policy would be
> >enforced throughout all gTLDs via the RAA; any end-user domain found in
> >violation of this policy was subject to immediate cancellation.
> >In such a circumstance, I would expect that any individual fisherman
> >ought to be able to challenge the policy on the grounds that (i) the
> >policy seeks to extend ICANN's control of gTLD policy to regulate an
> >unrelated activity, namely fishing, and so was outside ICANN's proper
> >scope and void and (ii) as a fisherman, he was materially affected by
> >the inability to register a domain in support of his business, and so
> >had proper standing to bring such a complaint. Such a fisherman ought
> >not to be told that ICANN accountability measures are unavailable to
> >him, or that in order to access them he must first obtain the support
> >of an ICANN constituency. He has a legitimate complaint, and should be
> >heard in his own right.
> >
> >I would suggest that the main requirements underlying the fear of
> >"untenability" to which you refer are really the need to prevent ICANN
> >being stymied by frivolous or vexatious objections, or be forced to
> >perpetually re-litigate issues that have already been adequately
> >reviewed. Limiting standing is at best an indirect way of addressing
> >these issues, and one that risks leaving ICANN unaccountable to those
> >materially impacted by its policies. Surely these concerns could be
> >addressed directly?
> >
> >That doesn't mean that I would remove any requirement for standing[*].
> >I wouldn't say that my fisherman is materially impacted by the outcome
> >in .wine, say, or in domain tasting rules. But a competent tribunal
> >ought to be able to determine on the facts and circumstances whether a
> >party is materially affected by the outcome of a dispute; courts and
> >arbitrators apply this and related standards in other fields all the time.
> >
> >We can, of course, have a discussion about where to set the threshold
> >for standing too: "materially affected by" is higher than "a legitimate
> >interest in", but lower than "would suffer serious harm from", for
> >example.
> >
> >[ * or rather, I would keep some test of standing for individuals. I
> >don't think I would for ICANN community components: the GAC, or the
> >GNSO, or perhaps even any ICANN constituency should automatically have
> >standing to trigger a review process in (many/most/all?) matters,
> >without need to demonstrate harm or loss. But maybe that is a WP1
> >matter.]
> >
> >> Third, the binding and independent nature of the review is to my mind
> >> the non-negotiable bear minimum of accountability  a man or a
> >> company shall not be a judge in its own case is a principal of the
> >> rule of law with a long provenance for good reason!  I am less
> >> concerned with exactly how this independent review is created and
> >> whether it is juridical (e.g. through the California courts) or
> >> arbitral (through some international arbitration body).  I think it
> >> should be funded by ICANN as a certain mandated level that may not be
> >> reduced and that its existence and funding need to be in the
> >> Bylaws/Contract/Charter in a way that cannot be amended.
> >
> >I agree on the bare minimum you propose. I doubt that a court process
> >is appropriate (as this community will want to create its own
> >standards, that may impose more strict requirements on ICANN than the
> >ordinary law would on a private company), and anticipate objections
> >from members of the community already concerned about US influence;
> >such concerns should be mitigated rather than exacerbated, as would be
> >the case if we introduce a new role for the California courts.
> >
> >> Finally, the provision of non Amendment by ICANN is an unfortunate
> >> necessity.
> >
> >Here I think you are overstating it slightly. Some possibility of
> >amendment should exist, but it should be through a process that
> >requires a high-level of community support, and not a unilateral action
> >by the ICANN Board. I would think that establishing a suitable process
> >for amendment would be a core issue for WP1.
> >
> >> Given the way the Board limited the IRP in April 2013 after it lost
> >> the .xxx case and given its failure thus far to fully implement the
> >> ATRT recommendations, we need to insiste that the redress process
> >> both be created and brought into existence before the IANA transition.
> >
> >I would like to think that a firm commitment would be sufficient, but
> >have heard enough about slow-, partial- or non- implementation in
> >related areas to have certain misgiving myself. I suggest we leave this
> >until last.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> As I said, these are my initial thoughts, more as the way of
> >> jump-starting the conversation than as a final ending point.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Paul Rosenzweig
> >>
> >> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> >> <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
> >>
> >> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> >>
> >> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> >>
> >> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> >>
> >> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> >>
> >> Link to my PGP Key
> >>
> >><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchcons
> >>ult
> >>ing.com_index.php-3Foption-3Dcom-5Fcontent-26view-3Darticle-26id-3D19-
> >>26I
> >>temid-3D9&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8Tj
> >>Dmr
> >>xdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ig2519ehwmCW6CCqBz_qY84N3tgA2fLF2pwu7iEQulw&s=mrTS5
> >>2Xl BxoOzv9FePHqO2e0VXIw1TNeDW6VzDZHpeg&e= >
> >>
> >>
> >><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference
> >>.co
> >>m_events_us15_register-3Futm-5Fsource-3Dinhouse-26utm-5Fmedium-3Demail
> >>-26
> >>utm-5Fcampaign-3Dsignature-2Dus2015&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&
> >>r=6
> >>2cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ig2519ehwmCW6CCqBz_qY84N3
> >>tgA 2fLF2pwu7iEQulw&s=3_yGh8BlWKoW4rX2JIj9ldmhxj-MJ81-HBN2c07JmLc&e= >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *From:*Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz]
> >> *Sent:* Monday, February 23, 2015 8:20 PM
> >> *To:* wp2 at icann.org
> >> *Cc:* Thomas Rickert
> >> *Subject:* [Party2] Doodle Poll and Docs for ACCT WP2
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello WP2-
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Apologies for the slow start, but I¹ve now cleared the decks to focus
> >> on this project.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> You should have received a link to the Doodle Poll to schedule calls
> >>for  this working party.  If you did not, please use
> >> this:
> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__doodle.com_htxbr2
> >>inp
> >>curzi4k&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDm
> >>rxd
> >>YahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ig2519ehwmCW6CCqBz_qY84N3tgA2fLF2pwu7iEQulw&s=jVSWyY_
> >>f67
> >>Bqk_ozavS7_Ue4miAp9sJAW2OSkeFnYmM&e=
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I¹ve attached a revised Scope document that reflects the work of WP1
> >> to date to attempt to clarify the division of labor.  I¹ve also
> >> attached a draft working plan, and the power point previously
> >> circulated on a ³standard² for ICANN.  Jordan and I will chat, but
> >> the location for this work is not entirely clear to me.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Becky
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> J. Beckwith Burr
> >>
> >> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
> >>
> >> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
> >>
> >> Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:
> >> +1.202.352.6367  / becky.burr at neustar.biz
> >> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz
> >><http://www.neustar.biz>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WP2 mailing list
> >> WP2 at icann.org
> >>
> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail
> >>man
> >>_listinfo_wp2&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8M
> >>o8T
> >>jDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ig2519ehwmCW6CCqBz_qY84N3tgA2fLF2pwu7iEQulw&s=I
> >>O9e C34-YCvh0NIDb_ao6S1Lt-LFHdFVocQ7_6duViQ&e=
> >>
> >
> >--
> >            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
> >   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog  London
> >Internet Exchange |
> >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx.
> >net
> >_&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO
> >P8W
> >DDkMr4k&m=Ig2519ehwmCW6CCqBz_qY84N3tgA2fLF2pwu7iEQulw&s=b8T6PTwgtz6eNSv
> >OUX
> >0hSMqSbxro10_Xffc_n1_1RbI&e=
> >
> >                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
> >           21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
> >
> >         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
> >       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP2 mailing list
> WP2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability1/attachments/20150224/f2575396/attachment-0001.html>