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

Tue Jan 26 14:53:30 UTC 2016

On the point highlighted below by Becky and supported by Greg i.e. that both would be desirable, Lise & had the opportunity to discuss this briefly. 

To do both does seem to us to cover the bases well and so it appears optimal, assuming the CCWG can work with this i.e. it is a practical outcome for the CCWG.

Agreed that the timing is good both in terms of the CCWG meeting later today and the current work on bylaws.

Thanks,

Jonathan

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] 
Sent: 26 January 2016 14:06
To: Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>
Cc: avri at acm.org; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG-ACCT Request for Guidance on PTI - IRP - Please respond by 23h59 UTC Monday 25 January 2016

It doesn’t seem to me that that should be hard to fix and the timing is perfect because we are currently working on the draft Bylaws changes.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>  [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 6:51 AM
To: Greg Shatan; Burr, Becky
Cc: avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org> ; cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> 
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG-ACCT Request for Guidance on PTI - IRP - Please respond by 23h59 UTC Monday 25 January 2016

This is an interesting question.  Para 107 says: This final proposal attempts to meet all of the above requirements by: ...   Establishing a contract between PTI and ICANN that will grant PTI the rights to act as the IFO, and set out the rights and obligations of PTI and ICANN

Could/should the concerns raised by Becky and Greg be addressed in the "rights and obligations" part of the contract outlined above, and if so does the Draft Proposed Term Sheet in Annex S adequately account for the concerns raised in this thread?   (My cursory read suggests that it does not.)  

Matthew

On 26/01/2016 04:17, Greg Shatan wrote:

Becky,

That is my impression as well.

Greg

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> > wrote:

My impression based on the various posts is that we need both a general provision regarding ICANN’s obligation to cause the PTI to fulfill its obligations (the failure to do so would give rise to a standard IRP) and we need something to address SLA failures, etc. with a operational (rather than constitutional) standard of review.

J. Beckwith Burr 
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B1.202.533.2932>   Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>  /  <http://www.neustar.biz> neustar.biz

From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> >
Date: Monday, January 25, 2016 at 3:22 PM
To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> >
Cc: "avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org> " <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org> >, "cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> " <cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG-ACCT Request for Guidance on PTI - IRP - Please respond by 23h59 UTC Monday 25 January 2016

Becky,

have we specified that there should be such a provision in the Bylaws?

I guess we have left to "implementation" the agreement between ICANN and PTI. I don't believe this has been picked up yet.  Am I correct?  If so, that should probably change soon.

Greg

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> > wrote:

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 <tel:%2B1.202.533.2932>   Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>  / neustar.biz <http://neustar.biz> 
<http://www.neustar.biz>

On 1/25/16, 10:30 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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=

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=6HapdIJul6_Kghgkb89eqFTW7ZOOi_qFE_TfT-h15z0&s=uD5dLPU_fKJNDV-O0vSqyTVMbq1ZOrZJqcWw5QTB_jQ&e=> 

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-- 

Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>  | T: +44.771.247.2987

CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.

 <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 

This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. 
 <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avast.com 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160126/6d2210ad/attachment-0001.html>