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

Thu Jul 23 03:28:37 UTC 2015

Hi,

The Implementation report of 2 April, the last I know of,
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atrt2-recommendation-implementation-02apr15-en.pdf>

lists this as something that has not yet been done yet, though says some
initial work has been done.

The The Working Group on GAC Working Methods (WGWM) is in charge of
implementing this recommendation.

Individual Status

> Consider, decide on and implement initial steps to provide rationales
> for GAC Advice
> GAC WGWM
listed as done.

> Consider, decide on and implement additional steps to provide
> rationales for GAC Advice
> GAC WGWM
> Not yet decided
>
> Improving the GAC register of advice
> ICANN staff and ACIG
> December 2015
>
> Include in the advice register a record of how the ICANN Board
> responded to each item of advice
> ICANN staff and ACIG
> June
> 2016

> Developing and publishing rationales for GAC Advice at the time advice
> is provided and recording rationales in the GAC register: The GAC
> considers that the rationale for GAC Advice has been made clearer
> through continuous improvements of the wording of the Communiqué
> itself. The GAC also notes that other initiatives, such as opening GAC
> sessions to non-members and holding GAC Open Forum sessions, help to
> explain GAC advice. In fact, the GAC considering holding the regular
> open forums after the Communiqué is released to explain to the rest of
> the ICANN community how and why the GAC agreed on its recommendations. 

> Note: If the GAC decides to implement this recommendation as written,
> it will then consider what further steps the GAC will take to provide
> more detailed rationale for its advice.

avri

On 22-Jul-15 18:44, Burr, Becky wrote:
> Here is what ATRT2 recommendation 6.3 says about GAC Advice:  "ATRT2
> recommends that the Board work jointly with the GAC, through the BGRI,
> to facilitate the GAC developing and publishing rationales for GAC
> Advice at the time Advice is provided. Such rationales should be
> recorded in the 5 GAC register. The register should also include a
> record of how the ICANN Board responded to each item of advice.”
>
> I can’t even find the status of implementation of this recommendation
> on a scorecard.  Avri, do you know what it’s status is.  Honestly, I
> am very eager to accommodate the GAC but this seems so fundamental –
> and it is meant to apply to all Advisory Groups.
>
>
> 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: Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
> Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 12:13 PM
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>,
> 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
>
> I agree with Robin and Becky - this kind of transparency is fundamental.
>
> On 7/22/2015 5:06 PM, 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" <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" <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
>>> <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
>>>
>>> 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 / 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>
>>>> *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 / 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.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2
>
> -- 
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 (0)771 247 2987
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP2 mailing list
> WP2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus