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

Mon Feb 22 21:33:27 UTC 2016

Absolutely Chuck - any individual or entity materially affected by a Board
action/or inaction, etc.  Individual registries (direct consumers of IANA
functions) would have two routes to get at service level problems through
an IRP

J. Beckwith Burr 
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy
General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
<http://www.neustar.biz>

On 2/22/16, 4:20 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <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:
>
>> 
>
>> 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.si
>>dley.com&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrx
>>dYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=satIenA91hHM7C6AbVnpcDTO5scsThPbUCgMvQmTObE&s=Le7xh_8hx
>>vcReg5NhOLlg-Xa1qg9Y0H_enWz9jQ93ro&e= >
>
>> [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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
>listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6
>X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=satIenA91hHM7C6AbVnpcDTO5scsThPbUCgMvQm
>TObE&s=BPrf7JOoVYh4x_B6XOF-DW3upZAVhieDktkHGv12F_g&e= 