[WP2] revised Mission, Commitments, Core Values -

[Phil Corwin]

That seems a reasonable clarification.

However, for further clarification, is this addressing GAC consensus advice or advice that is rendered with less unanimity?

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: wp2-bounces at icann.org [mailto:wp2-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 12:54 PM
To: wp2 at icann.org
Subject: [WP2] revised Mission, Commitments, Core Values -

I have updated this to reflect where I think we are.  But I might be wrong, and I acknowledge that members of the GAC object to the language in Core Value 8 (previously 11)

I have one thought on the "duly taking into account language."  I don't think anyone objects to ICANN duly considering GAC Advice, no matter what it is.  I think that the issue is the delay caused by the back and forth consultation process.  We could always change the language in Article 11 along the lines below:

j. The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANNBoard determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Unless ICANN determines that the advice addresses a matter that exceeds its Mission or violates its Bylaws, the The Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.


Under this language, ICANN would still need to inform the GAC why it is not going to follow that advice, but it need not enter into good faith negotiations if the reason that it is not going to follow the advice is that doing so would require ICANN to violate its bylaws (including the Mission).  I don't think this in any way diminishes the role of the GAC - ICANN clearly cannot follow GAC advice that violates the bylaws.


Thoughts?




J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  / becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2015.0.6037 / Virus Database: 4392/10258 - Release Date: 07/18/15
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2/attachments/20150720/14b4584e/attachment.html>