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

[McAuley, David]

Hi Sam,

I mistook the mail from Becky as one to our WP2 team and wrote down a few limitations I thought would be sensible for the team to discuss when we take up the subject of potentially expanding scope of IRP panels to address questions of substance as well as process. I was thinking along lines of reasonable limitations and writing down some thoughts along those lines when Becky's mail arrived. My bad, apologize for raising items in the wrong forum.

And it was not meant to bring up potential expansion subject to the larger list now as our co-chairs have done a good job of keeping us on a defined process and that shouldn't be disrupted.

David

From: Samantha Eisner [mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 5:12 AM
To: Burr, Becky; McAuley, David; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Draft WP 2 Scope, Mechanisms document

In terms of monetary awards, David, is this a suggestion to reform the IRP to include monetary awards (aside from costs/fees currently allowed?).  This would be inherently tied to any expansions of the types of relief that an independent panel could provide (e.g., are they declaring that there was an issue with the decision, or directing a different outcome, etc.)

Sam

From: <Burr>, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>
Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 3:56 PM
To: David McAuley <dmcauley at verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley at verisign.com>>, "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Draft WP 2 Scope, Mechanisms document

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<http://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/facab65a/attachment.html>