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

Thu Jul 23 20:29:56 UTC 2015

I support that.

Greg

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:

>   Yes
>
>  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
>
>   From: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> Date: Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 4:27 PM
> To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>, Thomas Rickert <
> rickert at anwaelte.de>
> Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, "wp2 at icann.org" <wp2 at icann.org>
> Subject: RE: [WP2] this is the current text of the Mission Commitments
> and Core Values language
>
>   Just so I’m clear
>
>
>
> The suggestion is to remove the chapeau from the ACs section, and insert a
> line into the IRP stating that it’s a valid cause to initiate an IRP?
>
>
>
> -James
>
>
>
> *From:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
> <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:25 PM
> *To:* Thomas Rickert
> *Cc:* Greg Shatan; James Gannon; wp2 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [WP2] this is the current text of the Mission Commitments
> and Core Values language
>
>
>
> I have a further compromise to offer – The IRP section should say that a
> materially affected party can bring a claim regarding bylaws violations,
> including ICANN’s decision to follow the recommendation of an SO or AC that
> requires it to violate the bylaws.
>
>
>
> FWIW, I don’t think this is a theoretical issue
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> *From: *Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>
> *Date: *Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 3:45 PM
> *To: *Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>
> *Cc: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, James Gannon <
> james at cyberinvasion.net>, "wp2 at icann.org" <wp2 at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [WP2] this is the current text of the Mission Commitments
> and Core Values language
>
>
>
> I suggest we drop it.
>
>
>
> Thomas
>
> ========
>
> rickert.net
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=GaZmgrQEJ4WzAwzxI1HaVxgZr5SOl-PqkDd3gZWorl8&s=vmsEfpc1MlECt1rNG653fHfPt8r7P5RydeuiSo-h5aI&e=>
>
>
>
> PS - Sent from my cell. Please excuse typos and brevity.
>
>
> Am 23.07.2015 um 20:41 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>:
>
>   Actually, that is the Eberhard Lisse test
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> *From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 11:36 AM
> *To: *James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> *Cc: *"Perez Galindo, Rafael" <RPEREZGA at minetur.es>, Becky Burr <
> becky.burr at neustar.biz>, "wp2 at icann.org" <wp2 at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [WP2] this is the current text of the Mission Commitments
> and Core Values language
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Actually, I have some sympathy for Jorge's argument -- that the insertion
> of this language regarding actions violating the Mission/Bylaws is intended
> to change the status quo.  At the least, it's a pointed reminder -- the
> kind that typically gets made after bad behavior ("Tenants are reminded not
> to leave garbage in the hallways" gets sent around my building only after
> some tenants start leaving garbage in the hallways.) So it can easily be
> seen as a warning and not merely a restatement of the status quo ("We see
> what you're trying to do.  Remember...")
>
>
>
> Also, is there really a lack of clarity regarding the Board's authority or
> lack thereof to act outside its Mission or to violate the Bylaws?  Does
> this bare-bones statement really add clarity?  I'm not seeing that there is
> or that it does.
>
>
>
> Further, while the statement is generally true, we are putting it in a
> specific place -- juxtaposing it with AC advice.  As such it would clearly
> be understood to be aimed at that advice and declaring a "line in the sand"
> with regard to such advice  The new suggestion of adding this to SO's only
> doubles down on this.
>
>
>
> At best, this language is redundant. At worst, it is language that will
> have an unknown effect on current activity.
>
>
>
> I would suggest applying the "Bart Boswinkel Test" in this case -- "Would
> you die in a ditch for it?"  In this case, my answer is no.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:21 AM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> wrote:
>
>  And let me say we appreciate the input by Spain but I must say that I
> think many of us don’t understand the reasoning behind an objection to
> ratifying the status quo into the bylaws, and to Jorges point I would
> happily support placing the same caveat over the SO’s also.
>
>
>
> -James
>
>
>
> *From:* Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA at minetur.es]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 23, 2015 3:30 PM
> *To:* Burr, Becky; James Gannon; wp2 at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [WP2] this is the current text of the Mission Commitments
> and Core Values language
>
>
>
> The answer to your question is in my first mail, which clearly states that
> “This is without prejudice to the Board accepting or turning down GAC
> Advice”.
>
>
>
> But let me ask you now your own question the other way around. Do you
> reckon that at this very moment in time the Board can violate its Bylaws if
> the GAC advises it to do so?
>
>
>
> The answer is no (I guess). So, why do you insist on adding this new
> provision? It seems worrisome to me that you think that the Board could be
> right now (and the last 17 years) violating its own Bylaws under demand of
> the GAC, and you/we are at last fixing this huge problem, grasping the
> opportunity that the CCWG provides.
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> PS Let me add here that I am only trying to understand and engaging as
> Spanish Gov rep., and I am not at all talking on behalf of other countries
> nor the GAC, which may or may not have more difficulty than me to support
> the changes put forward by the CCWG.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *De:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>]
>
>
> *Enviado el:* jueves, 23 de julio de 2015 15:16
> *Para:* James Gannon; Perez Galindo, Rafael; wp2 at icann.org
> *Asunto:* Re: [WP2] this is the current text of the Mission Commitments
> and Core Values language
> *Importancia:* Alta
>
>
>
> More important Rafael, how does the language that prohibits ICANN from
> acting in violation of its bylaws reduce the authority of the GAC or the
> scope of GAC Advice?  The GAC may give Advice on any topic it wants, in any
> manner it likes.  The only limit is that ICANN cannot act on that Advice if
> it would involve violating the Bylaws.  Are you saying that you think ICANN
> can violate its bylaws if GAC advises it to do so?  That seems very
> worrisome to me.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> *From: *James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> *Date: *Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 8:37 AM
> *To: *"Perez Galindo, Rafael" <RPEREZGA at minetur.es>, Becky Burr <
> becky.burr at neustar.biz>, "wp2 at icann.org" <wp2 at icann.org>
> *Subject: *RE: [WP2] this is the current text of the Mission Commitments
> and Core Values language
>
>
>
> To put this simply, the Board cannot act outside of its bylaws. No matter
> what the source of the reasoning for those actions.
>
> We are merely reflecting that reality in the by-laws.
>
>
>
> -James Gannon
>
>
>
> *From:*wp2-bounces at icann.org [mailto:wp2-bounces at icann.org
> <wp2-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Perez Galindo, Rafael
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 23, 2015 1:25 PM
> *To:* Burr, Becky; wp2 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [WP2] this is the current text of the Mission Commitments
> and Core Values language
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> I would like to again raise a strong concern on the proposed language
> establishing a general prohibition on ICANN acting on any advice of any
> advisory committee that would require ICANN to exceed its mission or
> violate its bylaws.
>
>
>
> Managing the Internet system of unique identifiers in the public interest
> is the first and foremost mission of ICANN (sections 2 and 3 of the AoC and
> sections 3 and 4 of the AoI). On their part, governments are responsible
> for public policy and obliged to protect the general public interest (ICANN
> Bylaws Article I Section 2.11, Tunis Agenda para 68 and 69, and page 6 of
> the Net Mundial Statement). It is the GAC who brings the public policy
> perspective into ICANN.
>
>
>
> The “global public interest” in ICANN’s context concerns not only the
> operational stability of the Internet. That is an essential issue, but
> there are more aspects to the many public interest issues actually
> encompassed by ICANN’s actions and policies. For instance, other important
> issues that go beyond the technical stability, such as intellectual
> property rights protection, privacy and law enforcement, cyber bullying,
> Public Interest Commitments regarding new gTLD, highly regulated sectors,
> and human rights, are at stake because they have an inherent impact on
> global public interest, and therefore can be subject to GAC’s Advice. In
> conclusion, GAC Advice should not be restricted to ICANN’s Bylaws.
>
>
>
> This is without prejudice to the Board accepting or turning down GAC
> Advice.
>
>
>
> Hence, we oppose this new proposal or any new one that restricts GACs
> scope, sets boundaries to the Advice it may give, or refrains it from
> exercising its role of protection of public interest in ICANN’s
> multistakeholder environment.
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> Rafael
>
> GAC_SPAIN
>
>
>
>
>
> *De:*wp2-bounces at icann.org [mailto:wp2-bounces at icann.org
> <wp2-bounces at icann.org>] *En nombre de *Burr, Becky
> *Enviado el:* jueves, 23 de julio de 2015 13:57
> *Para:* wp2 at icann.org
> *Asunto:* [WP2] this is the current text of the Mission Commitments and
> Core Values language
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP2 mailing list
> 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=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=uDaLAFAxj1narPKQuDaD5DFOLfKnfGrximk6ZSXjXwM&s=sn68Vulh7VCzKWQ3IXqqCRVl627FMxuaXpteZ_UvHxk&e=>
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> WP2 mailing list
> 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=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=GaZmgrQEJ4WzAwzxI1HaVxgZr5SOl-PqkDd3gZWorl8&s=NBwZ64_luPZhyLvCqMYA7xVPsv9rL68L0NXcTKM1Qno&e=>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2/attachments/20150723/753c8460/attachment-0001.html>