<div dir="ltr"><div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"><strong>
</strong><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><br></p><font face="Calibri"><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><br></p><font color="#000000"><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><br></p><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:22pt"><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">
<br></font></p><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black;font-size:22pt">Dear Becky</span></b></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">
<br></font></p><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black;font-size:22pt">Dear co.chairs</span></b></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">
<br></font></p><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black;font-size:22pt">Dear All,</span></b></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">
<br></font></p><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black;font-size:22pt">On the conference call on 24 Feb Becky casts doubt about the <span> </span>GAC ADV9ICE PERSIAN Gulf string</span></b></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">
<br></font></p><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black;font-size:22pt">She said GAC ADVICE on Persian Gulf .She stated that GAC did not
conclude on that SRING <span> </span></span></b></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">
<br></font></p><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black;font-size:22pt">I wish to reproduce the paragraph 3 from GAC Durban Communique</span></b></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">
<br></font></p><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black;font-size:22pt">Quote </span></b></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">
<br></font></p><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black;font-size:22pt"> 3. .date
and .persiangulf (ref. Beijing Communiqué 1.c.) </span></i></b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black;font-size:22pt">a. <b>The GAC has finalised
its consideration of the following strings, and does not object to them
proceeding: </b>i. .date <b>(application
number 1-1247-30301) </b></span></i></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">
<br></font></p><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><i><span style="color:black;font-size:22pt">ii. .<b>persiangulf
(application number 1-2128-55439) </b></span></i></p><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span style="color:black;font-size:22pt"><strong>Unquote</strong></span></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">
I therefore request my respectful Becjy to carefully read that advice with a vir</font></p></span><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt">ew to reconsider her position made at thart call conference </p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt">This should be corrected when minute is appropoved$</p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt">I ask Grace and others to incluse the content of this message in the minutes as I did indicate at the meerting</p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt">Sorry and regret that point was raised .</p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><br></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt">Kavouss </p></font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><br></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><br></p></font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><br></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><br></p></font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><br></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><br></p></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-02-24 18:04 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">As I was not at ICANN52, I missed that in the back and forth. I am, of<br>
course, delighted that we get to write the standard!! More power to me!<br>
[That's a joke friends!]<br>
<br>
More seriously, then, if we are to write the standard, we will want to very<br>
carefully define the scopoe of ICANN activity ..... should be interesting<br>
work<br>
P<br>
<br>
Paul Rosenzweig<br>
<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
<span>O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660">+1 (202) 547-0660</a><br>
M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650">+1 (202) 329-9650</a><br>
VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" value="+12027381739">+1 (202) 738-1739</a><br>
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
Link to my PGP Key<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><span>-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Burr, Becky [mailto:<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>]<br>
</span><span>Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 11:37 AM<br>
To: Malcolm Hutty; Paul Rosenzweig; <a href="mailto:wp2@icann.org">wp2@icann.org</a><br>
Cc: 'Thomas Rickert'<br>
</span><div><div class="h5">Subject: Re: [Party2] Doodle Poll and Docs for ACCT WP2<br>
<br>
With respect to our task, Jordan and I have chatted and agreed that the<br>
standard falls into our work stream<br>
<br>
<br>
J. Beckwith Burr<br>
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer<br>
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006<br>
Office: <a href="tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932" value="+12025332932">+ 1.202.533.2932</a> Mobile: <a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367" value="+12023526367">+1.202.352.6367</a> / <a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a><br>
/ <a href="http://www.neustar.biz" target="_blank">www.neustar.biz</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/24/15, 11:34 AM, "Malcolm Hutty" <<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net">malcolm@linx.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
><br>
><br>
>On 24/02/2015 15:24, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:<br>
>> Colleagues<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Let me get this started with a very simple statement of four<br>
>> principles that I think must be incorporated in any<br>
>> redress/accountability proposal<br>
><br>
>Paul,<br>
><br>
>Thank you for kicking the discussion off with from such a thoughtful<br>
>starting point.<br>
><br>
>It prompts some immediate reactions on my part.<br>
><br>
><br>
>> First, a standard is essential. That is the limiting function that<br>
>> defines what it is that ICANN and/or the Board may do and what, in<br>
>> turn, they may not do.<br>
><br>
>I agree, and saw the presentation from Becky at ICANN52 as starting<br>
>that discussion very helpfully. I was therefore rather surprised to see<br>
>you write this:<br>
><br>
>> I suspect that the actual content of that standard is not for WP2 to<br>
>> determine (for myself I want it as narrow as possible).<br>
>> That standard will come from elsewhere (WP1, CCWG, or CWG) as those<br>
>> processes move forward.<br>
><br>
>From Becky's presentation, I had understood that this WP2 would<br>
>absolutely be considering the standard. If that's not the case, I think<br>
>we need to flag up to the Co-Chairs the need for urgent clarification<br>
>of where this discussion ought to take place - perhaps a WP3<br>
>specifically on that question?<br>
><br>
>I think we can rule out CWG-Stewardship; they have explicitly ruled<br>
>most of this out of scope for their group.<br>
><br>
>> Our task is to insure that a) such standards are formulated; and b)<br>
>> that they are formulated in a manner that is capable of that<br>
>> adjudication. Our input should be to make the terms of the standard<br>
>> as well-defined as drafters are capable of.<br>
><br>
>Agree.<br>
><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Second, our biggest difficulty, in my judgment, will be in defining<br>
>> who is an ³affected party.² As we have seen in the broader debate<br>
>> over ³public interest² in some sense everyone in the world is an affected<br>
>> party. That, of course, is untenable. We need to give some definition<br>
>> as to who has ³standing² (that¹s an American legal phrase reflecting<br>
>> who may bring a suit) to initiate a complaint. My instinct is to<br>
>> allow it to be a) both directly affected parties that is people<br>
>> with contracts and/or commercial interests in the IANA function; and<br>
>> b) certain representative organizations can reflect the broader<br>
>> interests of certain constituencies. These may or may not be the<br>
>> existing SO/AC types. An area I think needs some real consideration<br>
><br>
>I disagree with your claim that it is untenable to grant standing to<br>
>any party materially affected by an ICANN decision or action.<br>
><br>
>I also don't believe it is at all acceptable to limit standing to<br>
>contracted parties: that is one of the major flaws in the existing IRP<br>
>provisions that needs to be corrected. Non-contracted parties have<br>
>legitimate interests too. For example, inasmuch as non-contracted<br>
>parties are consulted by ICANN in its decision-making and policy<br>
>formulation, they equally have an interest in ICANN following its own<br>
>procedures and bylaws. For another, I believe you and I share the view<br>
>that a major concern is the possibilibility of scope creep by ICANN<br>
>resulting in a negative impact other parties' interests without any<br>
>legitimate authority to do so: non-contracted parties (and especially,<br>
>registrants) are absolutely as interested in that as contracted ones.<br>
><br>
>Let me give you a scenario. Suppose that ICANN deciding that fishing<br>
>was<br>
>bad: fish stocks are heavily depleted and fishing is harming the<br>
>environment and leading to species extinction. In support of that view,<br>
>ICANN consensus policy determines that no domains should be registered<br>
>that promoted fishing or the consumption of fish. This policy would be<br>
>enforced throughout all gTLDs via the RAA; any end-user domain found in<br>
>violation of this policy was subject to immediate cancellation.<br>
>In such a circumstance, I would expect that any individual fisherman<br>
>ought to be able to challenge the policy on the grounds that (i) the<br>
>policy seeks to extend ICANN's control of gTLD policy to regulate an<br>
>unrelated activity, namely fishing, and so was outside ICANN's proper<br>
>scope and void and (ii) as a fisherman, he was materially affected by<br>
>the inability to register a domain in support of his business, and so<br>
>had proper standing to bring such a complaint. Such a fisherman ought<br>
>not to be told that ICANN accountability measures are unavailable to<br>
>him, or that in order to access them he must first obtain the support<br>
>of an ICANN constituency. He has a legitimate complaint, and should be<br>
>heard in his own right.<br>
><br>
>I would suggest that the main requirements underlying the fear of<br>
>"untenability" to which you refer are really the need to prevent ICANN<br>
>being stymied by frivolous or vexatious objections, or be forced to<br>
>perpetually re-litigate issues that have already been adequately<br>
>reviewed. Limiting standing is at best an indirect way of addressing<br>
>these issues, and one that risks leaving ICANN unaccountable to those<br>
>materially impacted by its policies. Surely these concerns could be<br>
>addressed directly?<br>
><br>
>That doesn't mean that I would remove any requirement for standing[*].<br>
>I wouldn't say that my fisherman is materially impacted by the outcome<br>
>in .wine, say, or in domain tasting rules. But a competent tribunal<br>
>ought to be able to determine on the facts and circumstances whether a<br>
>party is materially affected by the outcome of a dispute; courts and<br>
>arbitrators apply this and related standards in other fields all the time.<br>
><br>
>We can, of course, have a discussion about where to set the threshold<br>
>for standing too: "materially affected by" is higher than "a legitimate<br>
>interest in", but lower than "would suffer serious harm from", for<br>
>example.<br>
><br>
>[ * or rather, I would keep some test of standing for individuals. I<br>
>don't think I would for ICANN community components: the GAC, or the<br>
>GNSO, or perhaps even any ICANN constituency should automatically have<br>
>standing to trigger a review process in (many/most/all?) matters,<br>
>without need to demonstrate harm or loss. But maybe that is a WP1<br>
>matter.]<br>
><br>
>> Third, the binding and independent nature of the review is to my mind<br>
>> the non-negotiable bear minimum of accountability a man or a<br>
>> company shall not be a judge in its own case is a principal of the<br>
>> rule of law with a long provenance for good reason! I am less<br>
>> concerned with exactly how this independent review is created and<br>
>> whether it is juridical (e.g. through the California courts) or<br>
>> arbitral (through some international arbitration body). I think it<br>
>> should be funded by ICANN as a certain mandated level that may not be<br>
>> reduced and that its existence and funding need to be in the<br>
>> Bylaws/Contract/Charter in a way that cannot be amended.<br>
><br>
>I agree on the bare minimum you propose. I doubt that a court process<br>
>is appropriate (as this community will want to create its own<br>
>standards, that may impose more strict requirements on ICANN than the<br>
>ordinary law would on a private company), and anticipate objections<br>
>from members of the community already concerned about US influence;<br>
>such concerns should be mitigated rather than exacerbated, as would be<br>
>the case if we introduce a new role for the California courts.<br>
><br>
>> Finally, the provision of non Amendment by ICANN is an unfortunate<br>
>> necessity.<br>
><br>
>Here I think you are overstating it slightly. Some possibility of<br>
>amendment should exist, but it should be through a process that<br>
>requires a high-level of community support, and not a unilateral action<br>
>by the ICANN Board. I would think that establishing a suitable process<br>
>for amendment would be a core issue for WP1.<br>
><br>
>> Given the way the Board limited the IRP in April 2013 after it lost<br>
>> the .xxx case and given its failure thus far to fully implement the<br>
>> ATRT recommendations, we need to insiste that the redress process<br>
>> both be created and brought into existence before the IANA transition.<br>
><br>
>I would like to think that a firm commitment would be sufficient, but<br>
>have heard enough about slow-, partial- or non- implementation in<br>
>related areas to have certain misgiving myself. I suggest we leave this<br>
>until last.<br>
><br>
><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> As I said, these are my initial thoughts, more as the way of<br>
>> jump-starting the conversation than as a final ending point.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Cheers<br>
>><br>
>> Paul<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Paul Rosenzweig<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com</a>><br>
>><br>
>> O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660">+1 (202) 547-0660</a><br>
>><br>
>> M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650">+1 (202) 329-9650</a><br>
>><br>
>> VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" value="+12027381739">+1 (202) 738-1739</a><br>
>><br>
>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
>><br>
>> Link to my PGP Key<br>
>><br>
>><<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchcons" target="_blank">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchcons</a><br>
>>ult<br>
>>ing.com_index.php-3Foption-3Dcom-5Fcontent-26view-3Darticle-26id-3D19-<br>
>>26I<br>
>>temid-3D9&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8Tj<br>
>>Dmr<br>
>>xdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ig2519ehwmCW6CCqBz_qY84N3tgA2fLF2pwu7iEQulw&s=mrTS5<br>
>>2Xl BxoOzv9FePHqO2e0VXIw1TNeDW6VzDZHpeg&e= ><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference" target="_blank">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference</a><br>
>>.co<br>
>>m_events_us15_register-3Futm-5Fsource-3Dinhouse-26utm-5Fmedium-3Demail<br>
>>-26<br>
>>utm-5Fcampaign-3Dsignature-2Dus2015&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&<br>
>>r=6<br>
>>2cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ig2519ehwmCW6CCqBz_qY84N3<br>
</div></div>>>tgA 2fLF2pwu7iEQulw&s=3_yGh8BlWKoW4rX2JIj9ldmhxj-MJ81-HBN2c07JmLc&e= ><br>
<div><div class="h5">>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> *From:*Burr, Becky [mailto:<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>]<br>
>> *Sent:* Monday, February 23, 2015 8:20 PM<br>
>> *To:* <a href="mailto:wp2@icann.org">wp2@icann.org</a><br>
>> *Cc:* Thomas Rickert<br>
>> *Subject:* [Party2] Doodle Poll and Docs for ACCT WP2<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Hello WP2-<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Apologies for the slow start, but I¹ve now cleared the decks to focus<br>
>> on this project.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> You should have received a link to the Doodle Poll to schedule calls<br>
>>for this working party. If you did not, please use<br>
>> this:<br>
>><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__doodle.com_htxbr2" target="_blank">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__doodle.com_htxbr2</a><br>
>>inp<br>
>>curzi4k&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDm<br>
>>rxd<br>
>>YahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ig2519ehwmCW6CCqBz_qY84N3tgA2fLF2pwu7iEQulw&s=jVSWyY_<br>
>>f67<br>
>>Bqk_ozavS7_Ue4miAp9sJAW2OSkeFnYmM&e=<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I¹ve attached a revised Scope document that reflects the work of WP1<br>
>> to date to attempt to clarify the division of labor. I¹ve also<br>
>> attached a draft working plan, and the power point previously<br>
>> circulated on a ³standard² for ICANN. Jordan and I will chat, but<br>
>> the location for this work is not entirely clear to me.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Thanks,<br>
>><br>
>> Becky<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> J. Beckwith Burr<br>
>><br>
>> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer<br>
>><br>
>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006<br>
>><br>
>> Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile:<br>
>> +1.202.352.6367 / <a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a>> / <a href="http://www.neustar.biz" target="_blank">www.neustar.biz</a><br>
>><<a href="http://www.neustar.biz" target="_blank">http://www.neustar.biz</a>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> WP2 mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org">WP2@icann.org</a><br>
>><br>
>><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail" target="_blank">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail</a><br>
>>man<br>
>>_listinfo_wp2&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8M<br>
>>o8T<br>
>>jDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Ig2519ehwmCW6CCqBz_qY84N3tgA2fLF2pwu7iEQulw&s=I<br>
</div></div>>>O9e C34-YCvh0NIDb_ao6S1Lt-LFHdFVocQ7_6duViQ&e=<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">>><br>
><br>
>--<br>
> Malcolm Hutty | tel: <a href="tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523" value="+442076453523">+44 20 7645 3523</a><br>
> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London<br>
>Internet Exchange |<br>
><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx" target="_blank">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx</a>.<br>
>net<br>
>_&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO<br>
>P8W<br>
>DDkMr4k&m=Ig2519ehwmCW6CCqBz_qY84N3tgA2fLF2pwu7iEQulw&s=b8T6PTwgtz6eNSv<br>
>OUX<br>
>0hSMqSbxro10_Xffc_n1_1RbI&e=<br>
><br>
> London Internet Exchange Ltd<br>
> 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY<br>
><br>
> Company Registered in England No. 3137929<br>
> Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA<br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
WP2 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org">WP2@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>