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

Wed Jul 22 15:48:42 UTC 2015

Actually, I don’t think that it is too much to ask the GAC to provide a reason for its Advice.  It need not disclose truly private information – but without a basic explanation, how can ICANN enter into a reasonable discussion to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution?  And how can members of the community understand whether or not there is a way to address the GAC concerns.

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

From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>
Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 7:42 AM
To: "Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>" <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, 'Robin Gross' <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
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

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
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_index.php-3Foption-3Dcom-5Fcontent-26view-3Darticle-26id-3D19-26Itemid-3D9&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=QdR2C2NsA_zaHrigHjxzxPajAX1O54bDXJBzkeJEvrQ&s=PP63erk7JrvpRWCjYpYnUvudFkCytuKycAdCjfyNNyU&e=>

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<mailto: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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_wp2&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=QdR2C2NsA_zaHrigHjxzxPajAX1O54bDXJBzkeJEvrQ&s=cikIxfFi2RCxlG6v79P01rRdz5RE-Vk-az7lyopa0FQ&e=>

_______________________________________________

WP2 mailing list

WP2 at icann.org<mailto:WP2 at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_wp2&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=QdR2C2NsA_zaHrigHjxzxPajAX1O54bDXJBzkeJEvrQ&s=cikIxfFi2RCxlG6v79P01rRdz5RE-Vk-az7lyopa0FQ&e=>

--

*****************************

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/20150722/34828286/attachment.html>