<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">My initial concern with the highlighted language is whether "material breach by PTI" is consistent with the standard by which PTI actions/inactions are to be judged up to that point. If there are complaints about PTI actions/inactions that remain unresolved but don't rise to the level of a material breach, then an IRP based on the above standard would be unavailable to resolve those concerns.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Flanagan, Sharon <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com" target="_blank">sflanagan@sidley.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Dear Client Committee,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">We wanted to flag for you a recent discussion on the CCWG list serve relating to the CWG requirement for an IRP process to cover PTI actions/inactions. The
email chain is pasted below and includes input from Greg and Avri.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Also, below is the language from the final CWG comment letter to CCWG on this point. We believe the approach highlighted in yellow could be a workable solution.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">“As we noted in our comment letter to the Second Draft Proposal, the Third Draft Proposal does not explicitly address the CWG-Stewardship requirement that
an independent review process be available for claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI. This requirement could be addressed in a number of ways. For example,
<span style="background:yellow">a provision could be added to the ICANN Bylaws that would require ICANN to enforce its rights under the ICANN-PTI Contract/Statement of Work (SOW), with a failure by ICANN to address a material breach by
PTI under the contract being grounds for an IRP process by the Empowered Community (after engagement and escalation)</span>. Another approach would be to expand and modify, as appropriate, the IRP process currently contemplated by the Third Draft Proposal
to cover claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI, with the ICANN Bylaws and PTI governance documents expressly confirming that the IRP process is binding on PTI (which provisions would be Fundamental Bylaws that could not be amended without community
approval). Regardless of approach, the CWG-Stewardship requires that this dependency be addressed in the final CCWG-Accountability proposal in order for the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the conditions of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal have
been adequately addressed.”</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">As counsel to CCWG, we have a call with Becky Burr from CCWG on this topic tomorrow. If there is any additional guidance that CWG would like to provide
on this topic beyond what was included in the comment letter, could you please let us know?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Best regards,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Holly and Sharon<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">SHARON</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">FLANAGAN</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><br>
Partner<br>
<br>
</span><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Sidley Austin LLP</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><a href="tel:%2B1%20415%20772%201271" value="+14157721271" target="_blank">+1 415 772 1271</a><br>
<a href="mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com" title="Click to send email to Flanagan, Sharon" target="_blank">sflanagan@sidley.com</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black">
<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.orgOn" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.orgOn</a> Behalf OfBurr, Becky<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 20, 2016 11:42:41 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)<br>
<b>To:</b> Schaefer, Brett; Greg Shatan; Avri Doria<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Accountability Cross Community<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] PTI and the IRP</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">I am willing to address this issue either way here. We just need clarification from the CWG as to its preference. Either we create a stand-alone standard of
review (in which case I need help articulating) or we say (in the Bylaws) that ICANN is responsible for ensuring that PTI gets it right, and allow challenges via the IRP on the basis of ICANN’s actions or inactions that fall below this standard.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:black">J. Beckwith Burr</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#262626">
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#3366ff"><br>
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#008656">Neustar, Inc.</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#068658">
</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7d7d7d">/</span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#068658">
</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7d7d7d">Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer<br>
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:gray"><br>
</span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#008656">Office:</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7d7d7d">
</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7d7d7d"><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:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#7d7d7d">/</span></strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#068658">
</span><span style="color:black"><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neustar.biz&d=CwMF-g&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=1xdOjghwOaRYcxDPTuhZkMCTD7eRwKXzUuTnQOV8IMo&s=xy01Bx-Fh__bSI6ZDFiOqvA0_GlpT0jRy5DUdZh1uvw&e=" target="_blank"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#008656">neustar.biz</span></b></a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><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:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><Schaefer>, Brett <<a href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org" target="_blank">Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 10:45 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>, Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc: </b>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] PTI and the IRP<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I agree and would add that DIDP appeals, although they potentially could involve a bylaws violation I suppose, would most often involve an independent review
via IRP of the original decision to ensure that it was correct. </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">It seems that the IRP is being stretched in the borrowing. At the very least, there needs to be clarification that on how the IRP should handle these matters
if it is the proper vehicle and, if it is not, what exactly should be created to handle these matters. </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black">
<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>Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 20, 2016 12:36 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Avri Doria<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Accountability Cross Community<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] PTI and the IRP</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">Avri,</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">I agree with your analysis and share your concern. The PTI IRP is fundamentally not a Bylaws issue (or more accurately -- fundamentally not a "violation of the Bylaws" issue).</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">Having "borrowed" the IRP in an attempt to fill the requirements of the CWG, we can't then pretend that the requirements of the CWG are coterminous with the general design of
the IRP. The CWG's requirements will require a specific statement of the basis on which a claim may be brought -- and it is a different basis than for other IRP claims. This doesn't have to be long, but it does have to be right.</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">Conversely, if we are truly wedded to the idea that the IRP is a "bylaws court" and nothing more, then it can't be used to satisfy the CWG's requirement and we will need to do
something else. Personally, I don't endorse this position (though it does raise some concern about the ability of the panel to deal with PTI failures, if it is designed to be a bylaws court. That said, I have sufficient faith in the skill of experienced
arbitrators to be able to resolve a variety of disputes.)</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">Since this a requirement for the transition, we need to resolve this crisply, explicitly and appropriately.</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">Greg</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">Hi,<br>
<br>
I am uncomfortable with closing the discussion of the new principles for<br>
the IRP. Since we decided not to create a new entity to serve the<br>
requirements of the CWG but rather to make it a function of the IRP, we<br>
need to make sure that the basis for the IRP is fit for purpose before<br>
starting on its implementation.<br>
<br>
The CWG calls for:<br>
<br>
> 1. *Appeal mechanism*. An appeal mechanism, for example in<br>
> the form of an Independent Review Panel, for issues relating to the<br>
> IANA functions. For example, direct customers with non-remediated<br>
> issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the<br>
> CSC will have access to an Independent Review Panel. The appeal<br>
> mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and<br>
> re-delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD<br>
> community post-transition.<br>
><br>
<br>
I do not see how to define this function in terms of By Laws alone as By<br>
Laws have little to say about negotiated SLAs and the customers' or CSC<br>
complaints. Perhaps it can be done by changes to some of the By Laws,<br>
but I do not see us as having scoped out what those changes need to be.<br>
<br>
So until such time as we have dealt the the policy issues of filling the<br>
CWG's requirements, I would like to register a personal caution, and<br>
thus an objection, to closing the discussion of the basis and standing<br>
for IRP appeals. I do not believe this is merely an implementation<br>
issue. At least not yet.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivirus&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9zpJkUMQmkKK1JJZ4UjZmt9rbYe2_te6YMKJgHLAMCs&s=hrS-SjNieBsQS3g-4IaOCuqnhva_tsA1TDs8a0zMOOQ&e=" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">
<hr size="2" width="200" style="color:#58595b" noshade align="left">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#004b8d">BrettSchaefer</span></b><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#58595b"><br>
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs<br>
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy</span></i><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#58595b">The Heritage Foundation<br>
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br>
Washington, DC 20002<br>
<a href="tel:202-608-6097" value="+12026086097" target="_blank">202-608-6097</a></span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#004b8d"><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9zpJkUMQmkKK1JJZ4UjZmt9rbYe2_te6YMKJgHLAMCs&s=VeYpm4OC3DluvWT6BqP7fLSRT7eOV0sSm9Vw5RR91S4&e=" target="_blank"><span style="color:#004b8d;text-decoration:none">heritage.org</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9zpJkUMQmkKK1JJZ4UjZmt9rbYe2_te6YMKJgHLAMCs&s=L5e8VgjjxxQ3JnJo5baWM3AIcoofHz8l8EplNcQIZag&e=" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>
<p> </p>
<p>****************************************************************************************************<br>
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.<br>
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us<br>
immediately.<br>
<br>
****************************************************************************************************</p>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Cwg-client mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Cwg-client@icann.org">Cwg-client@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>