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

Mon Feb 22 22:14:55 UTC 2016

On 22 Feb 2016 10:34 p.m., "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:
>
> 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
>

SO: Becky could you kindly clarify the 2 routes you referred to considering
that IRP is a route?

Regards
>
>
> 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=
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160222/619130fd/attachment.html>