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

Grace Abuhamad grace.abuhamad at icann.org
Mon Feb 22 21:28:04 UTC 2016


Yes, anyone (individual or entity) can file an IRP.

On 2/22/16, 4:20 PM, "cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
Gomes, Chuck" <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

>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:
>> 
>> ·         1.b says: “The ability to exercise oversight with respect
>>to key
>> ICANN Board decisions (including with respect to the ICANN Board’s
>> oversight of the IANA Functions) by reviewing and approving:  (i)
>> ICANN Board decisions with respect to recommendations resulting from
>> an IANA Function Review (“IFR”) or Special IFR and (ii) the ICANN
>> Budget;”  Because the CWG Stewardship’s focus is specifically on
>> the IANA budget, would it make sense to change (ii) to something like
>> this: “the ICANN Budget including a separate budge for IANA
>> services”?  It seems to me that this would be consistent with item 2.
>> 
>> ·         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 Board’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 don’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.
>> 
>>
>**************************************************************************
>**************************
>> 
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160222/612a4a9a/smime-0001.p7s>


More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list