[IPC-GNSO] Updated Timeline for CCWG-Accountability

[Greg Shatan]

Anne,

That's quite a scorecard.  I'll have to think about it.  I may turn it into
a chart for easy reading.

I'd be interested in views from you and Jonathan Zuck, as other IPC folk
most active in the CCWG.

Greg

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrlaw.com>
wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> My understanding of the Chartering Organization approval process is that
> in the CCWG-Accountability Charter, there is a provision contemplating a
> possible Supplemental Report if any recommendation is not wholeheartedly
> approved by  a particular  Chartering Organization and that the Chartering
> Organizations may be able to make additional recommendations in this
> regard.   Is that your understanding?
>
>
>
> I was curious as to what you think about how the items IPC requested in
> public comment in September will be incorporated in the Accountability
> Report.   The list from the end of our public comment on the Second Draft
> Report appears below.  (At least I think this is the version that was
> filed.)  Do you have a sense as to how far we got with these public
> comments?
>
>
>
> “In particular, in its Final Report, the CCWG should incorporate the IPC
> recommendations embodied in the above comments in order to:
>
> (a) confirm that contractual enforcement is a core responsibility within
> the ICANN mission and clarify that such enforcement is consistent with
> ICANN’s “limited technical mission”[1] <#150b4bd6970253f6__ftn1>,
>
> (b) either delete the proposed Bylaws Amendment on Human Rights or embrace
> all Human Rights listed in the UN Convention,
>
> (c) reinstate the requirement to balance Commitments and Core Values,
>
> (d) make certain that AoC Reviews (and particularly the commitment at
> para. 566) are part of the Fundamental Bylaws and make certain all
> constituencies, including the IPC,  are directly represented on the Review
> Teams,
>
> (e) clarify that the recommended changes in structure do not affect AoC
> reviews currently in progress,
>
> (f) adjust voting weight in the Single Member Model to more accurately
> reflect community interests, including intellectual property interests,
>
> (g) provide a method for challenging Board decisions even where the
> majority does not support such a challenge,
>
> (h) retain Stress Test 18 regarding GAC consensus advice,
>
> (i) delete Stress Tests 29 and 30 as they are contrary to the concept that
> robust contractual enforcement is a key part of ICANN’s mission,
>
> (j) provide for interim remedies available to the Community pending a
> reconsideration or IRP which suspends implementation by the Board of a
> “captured” policy, and
>
> (k) deal with the possibility that the exercise of a Community Power may
> also be “captured” and provides a remedy for that situation.”
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Anne
>
>
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
>
> *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP*
>
> *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
>
> *(T) 520.629.4428 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>*
>
> *AAikman at lrrlaw.com <AAikman at lrrlaw.com>** | www.LRRLaw.com
> <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ipc-gnso-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces at icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 29, 2015 6:52 AM
> *To:* IPC-GNSO
> *Subject:* Re: [IPC-GNSO] Updated Timeline for CCWG-Accountability
>
>
>
> This time, with the attachment.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Attached please find the latest version of the timeline for the completion
> of the CCWG's work.
>
>
>
> We should consider how we will work within these timelines, both with
> regard to providing public comments and with regard to our role in the
> Chartering Organization approval process within the GNSO.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> [1] <#150b4bd6970253f6__ftnref1> Alternatively, the CCWG could simply
> eliminate references to the “limited technical mission” of ICANN.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ipc-gnso/attachments/20151029/6ab97acc/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3765 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ipc-gnso/attachments/20151029/6ab97acc/image001.gif>