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

[Paul M Kane - CWG]

Correct - that is my understanding too... and I think the CCWG has captured the
sense of what the CWG was asking for but has omitted the element that where a
review is triggered the process stalls any action by PTI pending the outcome of
the IRP....

I knew I didn't explain the scenario well.... sorry.... 

Best

Paul

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

> 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.
> > 
> >
>
****************************************************************************************************
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>