[WP1] Bringing AoC Reviews into ICANN Bylaws, v5 reflecting Paris Saturday discussion

[Grace Abuhamad]

Hi all, 
Here are some suggested edits from Bernie and me.

From:  <wp1-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Steve DelBianco
<sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
Date:  Monday, July 20, 2015 at 11:01 PM
To:  "wp1 at icann.org" <wp1 at icann.org>
Cc:  Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
Subject:  [WP1] Bringing AoC Reviews into ICANN Bylaws, v5 reflecting Paris
Saturday discussion

Updated to reflect Saturday in Paris, where we said that commitments stated
within the new gTLD and WHOIS reviews would stay in that section of the
Bylaws, instead of moving them to the Core Values.

I have noted 1 area with yellow highlighting for follow-up:

> In the chapeau on page 3 we note the need to define confidentiality and
> non-disclosure rules when the review team accesses documents that ICANN
> management says are confidential, sensitive, or proprietary.
> 
‹Steve



From: Steve DelBianco
Date: Friday, July 17, 2015 at 7:40 AM
To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org"
Cc: Jordan Carter, Avri Doria, "wp1 at icann.org"
Subject: Bringing AoC Reviews into ICANN Bylaws, v4 reflecting Paris
discussion

Today (17-Jul) we reviewed and revised the proposal to bring AoC Reviews
into the ICANN Bylaws.

By my notes, here are the changes we agreed today:

> Preference for option 2 on team composition, so removed 3-May proposal and
> Option 1.
> 
> Allow ATRT to amend these reviews, too.
> 
> Add 1 ICANN board member to each review team under option 2.  Note that our
> 3-May draft had a board member on each team.
> 
> Bruce Tonkin suggested requiring review teams to Prioritize their
> recommendations.   We heard several objections to making that a requirement,
> so I added it as a suggestion: "The review team should attempt to assign
> priorities to its recommendations."

Remaining challenges:
> 
> How to give review team access to ICANN Internal documents, while preventing
> disclosure/publication of information that is sensitive, confidential, or
> proprietary?  Do we impose sanctions for unauthorized disclosure?  HELP NEEDED
> HERE.

> Steve Crocker recommended changing the AoC commitments for WHOIS/Directory
> Services.  We heard some agreement with that idea, but strong cautions about
> attempting to drop WHOIS commitments as part of the transition.  Instead,
> amendments to the WHOIS/Directory Services review could be recommended by the
> first post-transition ATRT.
> 
> 
‹
Steve DelBianco
Executive Director
NetChoice
http://www.NetChoice.org <http://www.netchoice.org/>  and
http://blog.netchoice.org <http://blog.netchoice.org/>
+1.703.615.6206




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150721/f482514b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Section6_AoC Reviews into Bylaws - V5.2gma.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 49414 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150721/f482514b/Section6_AoCReviewsintoBylaws-V5.2gma-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150721/f482514b/smime-0001.p7s>