<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Martin and Chuck,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Please allow me to add my 2 cents below.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Gomes, Chuck <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com" target="_blank">cgomes@verisign.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Thanks for responding Martin. Please see my responses below.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Chuck<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"> Martin Boyle [mailto:<a href="mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk" target="_blank">Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, January 25, 2016 7:41 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck; Matthew Shears; <a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info" target="_blank">jrobinson@afilias.info</a>; <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG-ACCT Request for Guidance on PTI - IRP - Please respond by 23h59 UTC Monday 25 January 2016<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">For the gTLDs, I’m afraid I still do not properly understand where fundamental authority lies, so please bear with me chuck: I’ll get there one
day…<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">On 1, the {putative] registry operator requests a delegation. I assume that it would be for ICANN to agree to grant and to show this by signing
a contract. If it refused to for reasons that failed the “bylaw test,” an IRP against ICANN would seem to be appropriate. But there might be other reasons – community objections, or GAC opposition or even failure to meet the criteria. So wouldn’t “might
be applicable” be correct here?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">[Chuck Gomes] It depends. Are the community objections or GAC opposition in line with approved policy? For a registry appeal to be effective,
it should be based on approved policy. And community objections or GAC opposition should also be consistent with approved policy.</span></i></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> </span></p></span></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">This does not seem like a "PTI" issue. Rather this is an ICANN issue. So it is not really relevant to this question (although it's an interesting question). Now if ICANN approved the application and entered into a registry agreement, but PTI refused to delegate, then it would be a PTI problem, and the applicant could try to resolve this through CSC or through ICANN's enforcement of its contract with PTI. If CSC does not succeed, what is the end of the line for resolving a performance problem? Is it an IRP, and is the other party in the IRP PTI or ICANN?</div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div><span class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">On 2: I guess this would be the same for a ccTLD as for a gTLD. This would appear to fail PTI (or future IANA functions operator) obligations
to ICANN under its contract. I think I’m with Becky on this: a bylaw requirement on ICANN to enforce its contract with PTI would seem to be the simplest approach and an IRP could then challenge ICANN for failure. But is there a more direct approach here:
this would appear to be likely to fail one or more of the SLEs. It should be reported to the CSC, which (if there is refusal to correct) would escalate to RySG and/or ccNSO which would then decide on further action (a special IFR which could then lead to
a RfP). I have a certain antipathy to parallel paths and would certainly prefer the more “resolution-based” CSC to the more legalistic IRP.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">[Chuck Gomes] No argument here.</span></i></b></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">As with the above issue, if CSC cannot resolve the issue, the next step after that should be an IRP (but not based on ICANN violating a bylaw; rather it should be based on PTI's failure to do what is required of it). A special IFR (and possibly an RfP) based on a single failure to delegate seems like overkill to me. I do agree that the IRP should not be invoked until the CSC route has run its course.</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">And, in the case of ccTLDs, judging whether there is justification to reject (or simply delay) might be difficult.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">For 3: this would seem to me to be a CSC issue – that’s what they are there for, complete with their own processes to resolve the problem. I
guess that an obligation to enforce the contract would make it easier for the CSC to guarantee access to ICANN should PTI remain obdurate (and that might be particularly relevant in a post PTI world, should ICANN have to rebid the contract).<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">[Chuck Gomes] What if CSC cannot resolve the problem?</span></i></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">For me the fundamental reason why we might want to invoke an IRP would be that PTI is ignoring agreed policy (or seeking to impose its own ideas,
as ICANN did in the early days).<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">[Chuck Gomes] Agreed.</span></i></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Imagine PTI decides it wants to impose a contract on all its “customers” (where few ccTLDs have contracts and where (if I understand right) gTLDs
have their authority from the contract they sign with ICANN. That TLDs denied service unless they accept a condition that is not in policy (and therefore should be in breach of its contract with ICANN) should have the right to appeal through the IRP would
seem to me to be reasonable use of an IRP. Hanging around waiting for the ccNSO & GNSO to initiate a special IFR and then trigger remedial action and/or separation for an attempt at extension of power by PTI would seem to me possible, but not optimum.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">[Chuck Gomes] Agreed again.</span></i></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Happy to hear thoughts.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Martin<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Gomes, Chuck<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 25 January 2016 13:50<br>
<b>To:</b> Matthew Shears <<a href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org" target="_blank">mshears@cdt.org</a>>;
<a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info" target="_blank">jrobinson@afilias.info</a>; <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">
cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG-ACCT Request for Guidance on PTI - IRP - Please respond by 23h59 UTC Monday 25 January 2016<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Let me give a few examples where I think that the IRP would be applicable:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">1.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1f497d">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">A gTLD is not delegated as requested by a registry operator without appropriate justification.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">2.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1f497d">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Modification to a zone file record for a gTLD is not made without proper justification.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">3.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1f497d">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">SLEs are not met after applicable procedures are followed.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I think that we have recommended processes that would hopefully solve problems like the above well before an IRP would be needed, but it those processes do
not work in a timely manner, then an IRP would provide an objective and well-defined option for an appeal. I think the affected registry operator, the RySG or the GNSO should all have standing to use the IRP in cases like the above if needed. The RySG in
its comments over the history of the CWG Stewardship has repeatedly emphasized the need for registry operators to be able to appeal IANA decisions that they believe are contrary to policy.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I suspect that others could come up with other examples.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Chuck<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Matthew Shears<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, January 25, 2016 8:14 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info" target="_blank">jrobinson@afilias.info</a>; <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">
cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG-ACCT Request for Guidance on PTI - IRP - Please respond by 23h59 UTC Monday 25 January 2016<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Would it be useful to try and list the possible situations where recourse to an appeals mechanism would be used? This might give us a better sense of what type of mechanism would be suited and whether or not
the IRP would be appropriate/adequate?<br>
<br>
Matthew<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 22/01/2016 12:33, Jonathan Robinson wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">All,
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">We have received a direct request (see below) from the CCWG Accountability Co-Chairs for further guidance with respect to the application of the IRP to the
actions (or inactions) of PTI.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Moreover, we have had input from Sidley via the Client Committee as follows:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">“Sidley spoke with Becky Burr from CCWG today regarding the CWG dependency for an IRP process. Based on the call, it appears that the open question for
CWG is whether the CWG dependency is adequately met with an ICANN bylaw provision that allows for an IRP if ICANN fails to enforce the contract with PTI (for example, due to a material performance breach by PTI that is not cured) – or whether in addition
to such an ICANN bylaw, a separate process is also required that would give direct customers a right to mediation or arbitration to address SLAs or other service issues. If the latter is required, then in order for CCWG to create such a process, it would
need input from CWG on what the standard of review should be for those types of proceedings and what the type of process would be – for example, would non-binding mediation be sufficient to address a direct customer issue or would binding arbitration be required?
By clarifying this point, CCWG will be better positioned to ensure that the CWG dependency is being met in the CCWG proposal.”</span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">So the essential question is:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">A.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1f497d">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Is an ICANN bylaw provision that allows for an IRP if ICANN fails to enforce the contract with PTI (for example, due to a material performance breach by PTI that is not cured)
sufficient?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">OR</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">B.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1f497d">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">In addition to such an ICANN bylaw, is a separate process also required that would give direct customers a right to mediation or arbitration to address SLAs or other service
issues? </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">If B above, what type of process is necessary?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">As discussed in our CWG meeting yesterday, it will be particularly helpful if when responding to the above, you provide a rationale for your response.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">In addition, if possible, please make reference to (and be consistent with) the prior work of this CWG Stewardship (such as our proposal in response to the
RFP from the ICG).</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Given that the request from the CCWG Co-Chairs indicates their need to close this item by 28 January, we need to discuss this soon. Accordingly, we request
that you provide input ASAP and, in any event, <u>by 23h59 UTC Monday 25 January 2016</u>.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Thank-you,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><br>
Jonathan & Lise</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Co-chairs, CWG Stewardship</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> Alice Jansen [<a href="mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 21 January 2016 17:05<br>
<b>To:</b> Lise Fuhr <a href="mailto:Fuhr@etno.eu" target="_blank"><Fuhr@etno.eu></a>; Jonathan Robinson
<a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info" target="_blank"><jrobinson@afilias.info></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Mathieu Weill <a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank"><mathieu.weill@afnic.fr></a>; Thomas Rickert
<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net" target="_blank"><thomas@rickert.net></a>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
<a href="mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx" target="_blank"><leonfelipe@sanchez.mx></a>; Grace Abuhamad
<a href="mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org" target="_blank"><grace.abuhamad@icann.org></a>; <a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org" target="_blank">
acct-staff@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> CCWG-ACCT Request for Guidance on PTI - IRP</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Avenir","serif"">Sent on behalf of CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs</span></u><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Avenir","serif""> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Avenir","serif"">Dear Lise, Dear Jonathan,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Avenir","serif"">This is to inform you that further to our call #79, the CCWG-ACCT seeks the CWG-Stewardship’s guidance on the two proposed approaches that were suggested to address the dependency
that relates to PTI compliance through the Independent Review Process (IRP) i.e.: </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Avenir","serif"">1.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Avenir","serif"">Provide direct access to IRP for PTI action or inaction;</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Avenir","serif"">2.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Avenir","serif"">Oblige ICANN in Bylaws to ensure PTI compliance, in which case failure to do is covered by IRP.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Avenir","serif"">We are currently in the final stages of discussion to issue our supplemental report and would need to close this item by 28 January. Any prompt feedback you could send us would
be much appreciated. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Avenir","serif"">We look forward to your guidance.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Avenir","serif"">Thank you</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Avenir","serif"">Best regards</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Avenir","serif"">Mathieu, Thomas, León</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<pre>-- <u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><u></u> <u></u></pre>
<pre>Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>Center for Democracy & Technology | <a href="http://cdt.org" target="_blank">cdt.org</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>E: <a href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org" target="_blank">mshears@cdt.org</a> | T: <a href="tel:%2B44.771.247.2987" value="+447712472987" target="_blank">+44.771.247.2987</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><u></u> <u></u></pre>
<pre>CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at <a href="http://cdt.org/annual-dinner" target="_blank">cdt.org/annual-dinner</a>.<u></u><u></u></pre>
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" style="border:none;border-top:solid #aaabb6 1.0pt">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="105" style="width:78.75pt;border:none;padding:11.25pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:22.5pt"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration:none"><img border="0" src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/logo-avast-v1.png"></span></a><u></u><u></u></p>
</td>
<td width="470" style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:15.0pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:22.5pt;line-height:13.5pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#41424e">This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><span style="color:#4453ea">www.avast.com</span></a>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>