[CCWG-ACCT] Draft WP 2 Scope, Mechanisms document

[Burr, Becky]

Thanks David, this is helpful.  I’m not opposed  to binding, just not convinced it is absolutely required


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: <McAuley>, David <dmcauley at verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley at verisign.com>>
Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 3:33 PM
To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: RE: Draft WP 2 Scope, Mechanisms document

Thanks Becky,

Given the fluidity of the situation, I am responding in my personal capacity in order to reply somewhat timely, not having yet had a chance to discuss this with my colleagues.

Concerning substantive and procedural requirements near the top of the document, I would say that with respect to the IRP and to some extent Reconsideration Requests (RRs) it would be good to add consideration of:


·         Monetary award limitations (e.g., a prohibition on any money damages other than direct damages);

·         Some limited discovery rights (beyond the present ICANN document review policy) to interview witnesses and review documents; and

·         The precedential nature, or not, of IRP decisions (maybe including on RRs as well as IRPs).
The one substantive thing I would like to comment on concerns the word “binding.” It seems from our  conversation yesterday that you might have a concern with the notion of binding independent review power. I remain of the view that the IRP (or some reviewing body) must have the power to take a decision that has teeth. At the end of the day, we are looking for a check on ICANN given the absence of NTIA. It seems clear that some entity other than ICANN should have the final (well defined and limited) power to act as a backstop.

David McAuley


From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:55 PM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Draft WP 2 Scope, Mechanisms document

All,

Attached is a draft scoping document for WP2.  Jordan and I will be collaborating to coordinate the WP1 and WP2 scoping documents here in Singapore, so it is very much a draft at this point.  Would welcome input, comments, suggestions in the meanwhile.

Becky

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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150211/090d5113/attachment.html>