[WP2] this is the current text of the Mission Commitments and Core Values language

[Burr, Becky]

I am not opposed to articulating this standard in respect of SOs as well
as ACs if that is the inconsistency you are referring to.  The problem is
that the “reactions” to this proposed change are themselves quite
worrisome.  It suggests that those objecting are protecting some potential
authority to compel ICANN to override the Bylaws in the context of public
policy measures.   


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






On 7/23/15, 9:36 AM, "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch"
<Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

>The harm is inconsistency across the bylaws - for instance, what is the
>atandard in case of violation? and if you repeat such a thing once you
>should do it always, incurring in bad legal technique.
>
>And you trigger the reactions you are triggering without any legal need
>for it.
>
>best
>
>Jorge
>
>Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>
>> Am 23.07.2015 um 15:33 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>:
>> 
>> Clarity, expectation setting, and clarity regarding redress in the event
>> of a violation (I.e., via IRP) is the value and rationale.  What is the
>> harm? 
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 7/23/15, 9:28 AM, "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch"
>> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
>> 
>>> If it that is the case under current Bylaws what is the rationale and
>>> value-added of the proposed change?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> To draw an analogy from constitutional law: it is said normally once
>>>that
>>> any branch of government has to abide by the constitution. There is no
>>> need to repeat that when talking for instance about executive action
>>> pursuant to some advisory council recommendation.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> best
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jorge Cancio
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am 23.07.2015 um 15:23 schrieb Burr, Becky
>>> <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Correct Greg -
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <<As I read the Bylaws (as revised and currently), if the GAC gives
>>> Advice​ that would require ICANN to exceed its mission or violate its
>>> Bylaws, that should trigger a consultation, which presumably would be
>>> used to determine how to revise the advice so that ICANN can act on the
>>> advice while adhering to its mission and Bylaws.>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 
>>> WP2 mailing list
>>> 
>>> WP2 at icann.org<mailto:WP2 at icann.org>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>>n_
>>> 
>>>listinfo_wp2&d=AwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8T
>>>jD
>>> 
>>>mrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9ndSYbSIwWhmiJtl1nOF_HCYCHJbhHqieg2TA5OMqh0&s=7WwRL
>>>eI
>>> 5NLKwjpIXUQlU8GwnCwMMyPQ_2oO3QEwG6v4&e=
>>