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

Burr, Becky Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
Mon Feb 22 21:46:09 UTC 2016 

we’ll get that in the implementing round for the 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, 4:38 PM, "Paul M Kane - CWG" <paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk> wrote:

>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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.si
>>dley.com&d=CwIFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrx
>>dYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=_WCRPqr0ql7SlQpPpfslq01oNh8c0jfFDDqUea-Kzsc&s=dbEQGnJKD
>>c7RF2QqUllH4G4LIX_cZRw5XIBWtW6TcFA&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=CwIFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6
>X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=_WCRPqr0ql7SlQpPpfslq01oNh8c0jfFDDqUea-
>Kzsc&s=o8GZ7mSXoylCAm10MJmlP0t53Bwq0NZKjc_HAn-fjBs&e=

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list