[WP2] revised Mission, Commitments, Core Values -

[Bruce Tonkin]

Hello Becky,

This seems like a reasonable approach.

One other area that I think would help the Board in evaluating the advice would be for the GAC to include some references to national laws and/or international treaties as the basis for the advice.    

>From the bylaws:

"The Governmental Advisory Committee should consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues."

So perhaps we could add something under the bylaws with respect to GAC advice, that to the extent that it is possible the advice should include a rationale with references to relevant applicable national or international laws.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin


From: wp2-bounces at icann.org [mailto:wp2-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky
Sent: Tuesday, 21 July 2015 2:54 AM
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 / www.neustar.biz