[WP2] slightly revised mission, commitments, core values for discussion later today

Wed Jul 22 11:42:13 UTC 2015

FWIW, I have been reflecting on the “with explanation” requirement in the
second of these items below and I think I am increasingly somewhat
sympathetic to those who oppose this requirement – especially in the GAC
(for whom I generally have no great sympathy :)).  Reflecting on public
policy requirements I can at least imagine some plausible scenarios where a
government (or many governments) might wish to avoid having to say publicly
what they know to be true privately.  These can range from diplomatic
reasons of creative ambiguity to perhaps even the possession of confidential
information about an issue that is sufficient to raise concern, but not
disclosable.   At least in situations where the recommendation is by a large
consensus, we might be comfortable with the idea that the internal
discipline of the advisory committee is sufficient.

As I said, I am not all the way there on this yet, given my general
skepticism of unexplained decisionmaking, but even some colleagues in whom I
repose some trust have suggested that explaining everything may be a bit of
overkill.  Thoughts?

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl
e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 6:43 AM
To: Burr, Becky; Robin Gross
Cc: wp2 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [WP2] slightly revised mission, commitments, core values for
discussion later today

Dear WP2 colleagues,

I want to thank all of you for trying very hard to find agreement on all
these topics. I appreciate how everyone is keeping an open mind. 

I may have missed this in the discussions but what is the rationale for
inserting the words "within their respective jurisdictions" in Core Value 7
(ex-11). I remember we had some pushback on this in Paris. 

While remaining rooted in the [private sector], including business
stakeholders, civil society, the technical community, and academia,
recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for
public policy within their respective jurisdictions and duly taking into
account the public policy advice of governments and public authorities  

The proposed addition in Article XI  of the sentence below is also
attracting some pushback. 

or where the Advisory Committee has not explained the specific reason(s) for
its advice.

My personal view is that it may not be most appropriate to have this
criteria in the same sentence and at the same level as "not exceeding the
Mission". 

I also wonder whether we could find ATRT agreed language on the provision of
rationales in support of advice. It seemed to me that these reviews had
contributed to significant improvements in that regard and the use of
"agreed language" often helps when time is short. 

Best,

Le 21/07/2015 20:43, Burr, Becky a écrit :

Whoops, apologies – will fix that in the discussion

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> 

From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org> >
Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 2:36 PM
To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> >
Cc: "wp2 at icann.org <mailto:wp2 at icann.org> " <wp2 at icann.org
<mailto:wp2 at icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [WP2] slightly revised mission, commitments, core values for
discussion later today

Looks good - except it is missing the critical word of "not".  So it should
read: 

[...] ICANN shall have no authority to act or refrain from acting in
response to input advice from an Advisory Committee where such advice would
require ICANN to exceed its Mission or violate these Bylaws or where the
Advisory Committee has not explained the specific reason(s) for its advice. 

Thank you,

Robin

On Jul 21, 2015, at 11:30 AM, Burr, Becky wrote:

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> 

<7-21 Mission and Core Values
V2.docx>_______________________________________________
WP2 mailing list
WP2 at icann.org <mailto:WP2 at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2

_______________________________________________
WP2 mailing list
WP2 at icann.org <mailto:WP2 at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2

-- 
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> 
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2/attachments/20150722/4bbc2d4c/attachment.html>