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

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Wed Feb 24 06:46:03 UTC 2016 

Hi,

Yeah, I wouldn't think of  that as a CCWG element anyway, it would be
more of a CWG implementation issue.

avri



On 22-Feb-16 23:46, Burr, Becky wrote:
> 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= 
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list