[CWG-Stewardship] CCWG-ACCT Request for Guidance on PTI - IRP - Please respond by 23h59 UTC Monday 25 January 2016

[Burr, Becky]

Presumably if ICANN has an obligation in its Bylaws to ensure that PTI
does the right thing, it will need to create the necessary enforcement
mechanisms in its relationship with PTI.


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 1/25/16, 10:30 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Another nagging question I have, and one I think people tell me I am
>wrong about becase of MOUs and contracts.
>
>In the PTI environment, given that ICANN remains the representative for
>2 of the operational communities, and they resolve their IANA issues
>with ICANN based on contracts and MOUs, how do we expect ICANN to get
>what it needs from IANA on their behalf?
>
>Will, as today. they just tell IANA what to do and that will be the end
>of it.
>
>The other OCs have indicated that any appeals mechanisms we create are
>irrelevant to their case - they have their own methods.  But these
>methods involve ICANN and not PTI.  Does ICANN need to appeal on their
>behalf?  How does it do this?
>
>avri
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivir
>us&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8
>WDDkMr4k&m=sNRRTgQciMa9L6cxsRmapxpj1FEfitYPlAMn4NmB4Gk&s=VjHS6O9uycnwTVSFP
>XRCBB11R2TBkKIwjKy1wEj8MaU&e=
>
>_______________________________________________
>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=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6
>X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=sNRRTgQciMa9L6cxsRmapxpj1FEfitYPlAMn4Nm
>B4Gk&s=0HwgSD_DtHwhuq9QOacLroSh0USPJ_sMNZMCTVHGh78&e=