[WP2] revised Mission, Commitments, Core Values -

[Greg Shatan]

I like Bruce's idea.

Greg

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Bruce Tonkin <
Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> WP2 mailing list
> WP2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2/attachments/20150720/f215dbc2/attachment.html>