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

Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Thu Jul 23 13:47:35 UTC 2015


It is difficult to make assumptions. But id the current situation already provides for the same result, the inference a lawyer would normall draw is the opposite: you are pushing a change to alter the Status quo. As there is no rationale for it, be it legal or any other which would make thia change necessary, the onus to obtaim consensus is on the proposer.

best

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

> Am 23.07.2015 um 15:41 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>:
> 
> 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=
> 


More information about the WP2 mailing list