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

Wed Jul 22 16:41:54 UTC 2015

The processes I am referring to where GAC provided rationale include but 
not limited to:

1.*GAC principles on new gTLDsMarch 28 
2007*https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/New+gTLDs

2.*GAC comments on Geographic names*letter to the ICANN board 25^th 
April 2009 
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/karklins-to-twomey-24apr09-en.pdf

*3.**GAC score card on new gTLDs 2011: 
*https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/New+gTLDs**

4.*GAC Early Warnings: 
*https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Early+Warnings

Best regards
Alice

On 22/07/2015 19:22, Alice Munyua wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> As mentioned by the GAC chair during our meeting in Paris, the GAC 
> consensus advice contained in the 2013 Beijing communique was a result 
> of a long process that originated before the new gTLD application 
> round was open. The Beijing consensus advice was the result of a long 
> and lengthy process of providing rationale to the board, ICANN 
> community, including applicants, on future GAC related responses to 
> new gTLD applications.
>
> The processes provided several avenues for applicants to engage with 
> the GAC and individual governments regarding any concerns raised by 
> individual governments and GAC as a whole.
>
> Best regards
>
> Alice
>
>
>
> On 22/07/2015 19:06, Robin Gross wrote:
>> Indeed requiring explanations for all key decisions is critical to 
>> ICANN's general accountability.  In the recent .africa case, the IRP 
>> panel declared GAC should have provided a rationale for its objection 
>> and that the board had a duty of diligence to examine that reason. 
>>  These are fundamental concepts in good governance and absolutely 
>> appropriate for enhancing ICANN's accountability to the public it 
>> serves.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On Jul 22, 2015, at 8:48 AM, Burr, Becky wrote:
>>
>>> 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 <http://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 
>>> J). 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 inputadvice 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
>>> *****************************
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WP2 mailing list
>> WP2 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150722/2ba4047e/attachment-0001.html>