[CWG-Stewardship] Sidley's Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal for review

Mon Feb 22 21:20:37 UTC 2016

My understanding is that the CCWG recommendations already allows for an individual registry to file an IRP.  Am I correct on that?

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk] 
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 12:53 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley's Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal for review

I agree with Chuck's valuable comments 1 and 2.

May I add .... from the letter, item 7.  Appeals Mechanism...

NOTE: Obviously ICANN will not intentionally do anything to undermine stability, reliability or security of a Registry's operation.... there has not been any evidence in the past that I am aware of....  

However..... to make sure that post transition there is stability of service .....
Today, the NTIA "approves" the change request (or sends it back) and has given a perception of indemnification to ICANN for its actions (or failure to act).

If ICANN were to propose a course of (non-)action that impacted the stability, reliability or security of a TLD Registry and its customers the Appeal's mechanism needs to kick in VERY quickly .... ie before ICANN pursued the specific damaging course of action.... 

So in order for ICANN to be accountable to the community it serves any
(potentially) aggrieved Registry should be able to file for an Independent Review Process in the interest of stability of operation and thereby stop ICANN from undertaking the potentially damaging action ..... pending the review.

I have not articulated this well (I apologise) I hope the substantive issue is understood.

Best

Paul

Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>:

> Overall, this looks pretty good to me but I have a few comments for 
> consideration about the letter:
> 
> Â·         1.b says: â€œThe ability to exercise oversight with respect to key
> ICANN Board decisions (including with respect to the ICANN Boardâ€™s 
> oversight of the IANA Functions) by reviewing and approving:  (i) 
> ICANN Board decisions with respect to recommendations resulting from 
> an IANA Function Review (â€œIFRâ€) or Special IFR and (ii) the ICANN 
> Budget;â€  Because the CWG Stewardshipâ€™s focus is specifically on 
> the IANA budget, would it make sense to change (ii) to something like 
> this: â€œthe ICANN Budget including a separate budge for IANA 
> servicesâ€?  It seems to me that this would be consistent with item 2.
> 
> Â·         I like the fact that the letter states the CWG requirements for
> each area and that a clear conclusion is provided but I think it would 
> also be very helpful if in each of the eight cases, between the CWG 
> requirement paragraph and the conclusion, the CCWG Accountability 
> recommendations that fulfill the requirements were briefly listed.  If 
> this seems like a good idea, here is a formatting idea: Provide a 
> heading for each of the three paragraphs of each of the eight items 
> just like is already done for the
> conclusions: 1) CWG Stewardship Requirements; 2) Applicable CCWG 
> Accountability Recommendations; 3) Conclusion.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> 
> 
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org 
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr
> Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 4:03 AM
> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley's Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG 
> Final Proposal for review
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Last Friday the 12th February we sent you an update on process and 
> timing regarding our work on the CWG Stewardship Dependency on CCWG Accountability.
> 
> Sidley has, as the CWG agreed, updated our response to CCWG to reflect 
> the changes that have since been made in the Supplementary Proposal. 
> Below is the email from Sidley which also addresses areas that the CWG 
> should be aware of.
> 
> We now need you to review this response and give any feedback 
> immediately and no later than 23h59 UTC on Tuesday 23 February.
> 
> We will then ensure that the final response is communicated to the 
> CCWG, the Chartering Organisations and, of course, the ICG on or around 24 February.
> 
> Any concerns, questions or issues arising, please let us know ASAP.
> 
> Jonathan & Lise
> CWG Stewardship Co-Chairs
> 
> 
> From: 
> cwg-client-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:cwg-client-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Flanagan, Sharon
> Sent: 19 February 2016 22:57
> To: Client Committee
> Subject: [client com] Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Attached please find a draft of the CWG letter to the CCWG regarding 
> the CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal.
> 
> As noted in our prior email, with respect to the CWG dependency for an 
> empowered community there was a request in the prior CWG comment 
> letter for CCWG to consider whether the timelines in the prior CCWG 
> proposal for SO/AC action were sufficiently long.  The revised CCWG 
> proposal has extended some of these timelines.  As noted in our prior 
> email, while this is not strictly an issue of conformity with the CWG 
> proposal as the CWG proposal does not address this type of detail, we 
> wanted to confirm that CWG was satisfied with the response to its prior comment letter.
> 
> Please also note that the community power to recall the entire ICANN 
> Board is modified when the Board is to be recalled for implementing GAC advice.
> Specifically, if the Empowered Community initiates an IRP challenging 
> the Boardâ€™s implementation of GAC advice as being inconsistent with 
> the ICANN Bylaws but does not prevail in the IRP, the Empowered 
> Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire Board solely 
> on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. The Empowered Community 
> may, however, exercise the power to recall the entire Board based on 
> other grounds.  We donâ€™t believe this directly impacts the CWG dependency, but we did want to note it.
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Holly and Sharon
> 
> SHARON R. FLANAGAN
> Partner
> 
> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com>
> [Image removed by sender. SIDLEY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
****************************************************************************************************
> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is 
> privileged or confidential.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and 
> any attachments and notify us immediately.
> 
>
****************************************************************************************************
> 