<p dir="ltr">On 22 Feb 2016 10:34 p.m., "Burr, Becky" <<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Absolutely Chuck - any individual or entity materially affected by a Board<br>
> action/or inaction, etc. Individual registries (direct consumers of IANA<br>
> functions) would have two routes to get at service level problems through<br>
> an IRP<br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">SO: Becky could you kindly clarify the 2 routes you referred to considering that IRP is a route?</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br>
><br>
><br>
> J. Beckwith Burr<br>
> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy<br>
> General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer<br>
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006<br>
> Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / <a href="http://neustar.biz">neustar.biz</a><br>
> <<a href="http://www.neustar.biz">http://www.neustar.biz</a>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 2/22/16, 4:20 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> >My understanding is that the CCWG recommendations already allows for an<br>
> >individual registry to file an IRP. Am I correct on that?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >Chuck<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >-----Original Message-----<br>
> ><br>
> >From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk">paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk</a>]<br>
> ><br>
> >Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 12:53 PM<br>
> ><br>
> >To: Gomes, Chuck<br>
> ><br>
> >Cc: Lise Fuhr; <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
> ><br>
> >Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley's Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG<br>
> >Final Proposal for review<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >I agree with Chuck's valuable comments 1 and 2.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >May I add .... from the letter, item 7. Appeals Mechanism...<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >NOTE: Obviously ICANN will not intentionally do anything to undermine<br>
> >stability, reliability or security of a Registry's operation.... there<br>
> >has not been any evidence in the past that I am aware of....<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >However..... to make sure that post transition there is stability of<br>
> >service .....<br>
> ><br>
> >Today, the NTIA "approves" the change request (or sends it back) and has<br>
> >given a perception of indemnification to ICANN for its actions (or<br>
> >failure to act).<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >If ICANN were to propose a course of (non-)action that impacted the<br>
> >stability, reliability or security of a TLD Registry and its customers<br>
> >the Appeal's mechanism needs to kick in VERY quickly .... ie before ICANN<br>
> >pursued the specific damaging course of action....<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >So in order for ICANN to be accountable to the community it serves any<br>
> ><br>
> >(potentially) aggrieved Registry should be able to file for an<br>
> >Independent Review Process in the interest of stability of operation and<br>
> >thereby stop ICANN from undertaking the potentially damaging action .....<br>
> >pending the review.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >I have not articulated this well (I apologise) I hope the substantive<br>
> >issue is understood.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >Best<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >Paul<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>>:<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >> Overall, this looks pretty good to me but I have a few comments for<br>
> ><br>
> >> consideration about the letter:<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >> · 1.b says: “The ability to exercise oversight with respect<br>
> >>to key<br>
> ><br>
> >> ICANN Board decisions (including with respect to the ICANN Board’s<br>
> ><br>
> >> oversight of the IANA Functions) by reviewing and approving: (i)<br>
> ><br>
> >> ICANN Board decisions with respect to recommendations resulting from<br>
> ><br>
> >> an IANA Function Review (“IFR†) or Special IFR and (ii) the ICANN<br>
> ><br>
> >> Budget;†Because the CWG Stewardship’s focus is specifically on<br>
> ><br>
> >> the IANA budget, would it make sense to change (ii) to something like<br>
> ><br>
> >> this: “the ICANN Budget including a separate budge for IANA<br>
> ><br>
> >> services†? It seems to me that this would be consistent with item 2.<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >> · I like the fact that the letter states the CWG requirements<br>
> >>for<br>
> ><br>
> >> each area and that a clear conclusion is provided but I think it would<br>
> ><br>
> >> also be very helpful if in each of the eight cases, between the CWG<br>
> ><br>
> >> requirement paragraph and the conclusion, the CCWG Accountability<br>
> ><br>
> >> recommendations that fulfill the requirements were briefly listed. If<br>
> ><br>
> >> this seems like a good idea, here is a formatting idea: Provide a<br>
> ><br>
> >> heading for each of the three paragraphs of each of the eight items<br>
> ><br>
> >> just like is already done for the<br>
> ><br>
> >> conclusions: 1) CWG Stewardship Requirements; 2) Applicable CCWG<br>
> ><br>
> >> Accountability Recommendations; 3) Conclusion.<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >> Chuck<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >> From: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
> ><br>
> >> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr<br>
> ><br>
> >> Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 4:03 AM<br>
> ><br>
> >> To: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
> ><br>
> >> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley's Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG<br>
> ><br>
> >> Final Proposal for review<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >> Dear All,<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >> Last Friday the 12th February we sent you an update on process and<br>
> ><br>
> >> timing regarding our work on the CWG Stewardship Dependency on CCWG<br>
> >>Accountability.<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >> Sidley has, as the CWG agreed, updated our response to CCWG to reflect<br>
> ><br>
> >> the changes that have since been made in the Supplementary Proposal.<br>
> ><br>
> >> Below is the email from Sidley which also addresses areas that the CWG<br>
> ><br>
> >> should be aware of.<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >> We now need you to review this response and give any feedback<br>
> ><br>
> >> immediately and no later than 23h59 UTC on Tuesday 23 February.<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >> We will then ensure that the final response is communicated to the<br>
> ><br>
> >> CCWG, the Chartering Organisations and, of course, the ICG on or around<br>
> >>24 February.<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >> Any concerns, questions or issues arising, please let us know ASAP.<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >> Jonathan & Lise<br>
> ><br>
> >> CWG Stewardship Co-Chairs<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >> From:<br>
> ><br>
> >> <a href="mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org">cwg-client-bounces@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org">cwg-client-bounces@icann.org</a>><br>
> ><br>
> >> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org">cwg-client-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Flanagan, Sharon<br>
> ><br>
> >> Sent: 19 February 2016 22:57<br>
> ><br>
> >> To: Client Committee<br>
> ><br>
> >> Subject: [client com] Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >> Dear All,<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >> Attached please find a draft of the CWG letter to the CCWG regarding<br>
> ><br>
> >> the CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal.<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >> As noted in our prior email, with respect to the CWG dependency for an<br>
> ><br>
> >> empowered community there was a request in the prior CWG comment<br>
> ><br>
> >> letter for CCWG to consider whether the timelines in the prior CCWG<br>
> ><br>
> >> proposal for SO/AC action were sufficiently long. The revised CCWG<br>
> ><br>
> >> proposal has extended some of these timelines. As noted in our prior<br>
> ><br>
> >> email, while this is not strictly an issue of conformity with the CWG<br>
> ><br>
> >> proposal as the CWG proposal does not address this type of detail, we<br>
> ><br>
> >> wanted to confirm that CWG was satisfied with the response to its prior<br>
> >>comment letter.<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >> Please also note that the community power to recall the entire ICANN<br>
> ><br>
> >> Board is modified when the Board is to be recalled for implementing GAC<br>
> >>advice.<br>
> ><br>
> >> Specifically, if the Empowered Community initiates an IRP challenging<br>
> ><br>
> >> the Board’s implementation of GAC advice as being inconsistent with<br>
> ><br>
> >> the ICANN Bylaws but does not prevail in the IRP, the Empowered<br>
> ><br>
> >> Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire Board solely<br>
> ><br>
> >> on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. The Empowered Community<br>
> ><br>
> >> may, however, exercise the power to recall the entire Board based on<br>
> ><br>
> >> other grounds. We don’t believe this directly impacts the CWG<br>
> >>dependency, but we did want to note it.<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >> Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss.<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >> Kind regards,<br>
> ><br>
> >> Holly and Sharon<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >> SHARON R. FLANAGAN<br>
> ><br>
> >> Partner<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> >><a href="http://www.sidley.com">www.sidley.com</a><<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.si">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.si</a><br>
> >><a href="http://dley.com">dley.com</a>&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrx<br>
> >>dYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=satIenA91hHM7C6AbVnpcDTO5scsThPbUCgMvQmTObE&s=Le7xh_8hx<br>
> >>vcReg5NhOLlg-Xa1qg9Y0H_enWz9jQ93ro&e= ><br>
> ><br>
> >> [Image removed by sender. SIDLEY]<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >**************************************************************************<br>
> >**************************<br>
> ><br>
> >> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is<br>
> ><br>
> >> privileged or confidential.<br>
> ><br>
> >> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and<br>
> ><br>
> >> any attachments and notify us immediately.<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> >**************************************************************************<br>
> >**************************<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >_______________________________________________<br>
> >CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
> ><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
> ><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_</a><br>
> >listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6<br>
> >X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=satIenA91hHM7C6AbVnpcDTO5scsThPbUCgMvQm<br>
> >TObE&s=BPrf7JOoVYh4x_B6XOF-DW3upZAVhieDktkHGv12F_g&e=<br>
><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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</p>