[CCWG-ACCT] Additional Document for discussion

[Greg Shatan]

Roelof:

It occurs to me that you might not be clear on what "Consensus Policy"
means in this context.

"Consensus Policy" is a specifically defined term used in the ICANN Bylaws
and defined in the gTLD Registry Agreement and Registrar Accreditation
Agreement.  (To the best of my knowledge, it is not used in the ccTLD
context.)  It refers to policy developed through the GNSO Policy
Development Process, and specifically to policy which is meant to create
binding obligations on gTLD registries and registrars.  Consensus policy is
developed by a Working Group, which must approve its recommendations by
consensus of the Working Group (such consensus is "rough" consensus rather
than "full" consensus).  The potential Consensus Policy must then be
approved by a GNSO Council Supermajority vote.  If approved, it is a "PDP
Recommendation.  The PDP Recommendation then goes to the ICANN Board.  The
Board must then adopt the PDP Recommendation unless it is rejected by a 2/3
vote. The vote is supposed to take place "as soon as feasible, but
preferably not later than the second meeting after receipt of a Board
Report on the PDP Recommendation, prepared by an ICANN Staff Manager.

I hope this helps you understand what is being discussed.  Becky or others,
please feel free to correct or clarify.

In terms of measuring consensus, the Final Report of a PDP Working Group
contains a record of the position of each participant with regard to
consensus.  I don't think there is any particular need for this Working
Group to delve into GNSO PDP Working Group Procedures, at least not as a
Work Stream 1 issue.  I assume this was not what you were suggesting, in
any event.

There may be accountability issues relating to the Board's actions in
approving consensus policy.  For instance, I'm not sure if the Board ever
approved or rejected certain PDP Recommendations relating to IGO/INGO
identifiers that differed from GAC Policy Advice.  These were before the
Board for a vote on 30 April 2014, and the Board tried to broker a
compromise, rather than directly face the issue of a "policy collision"
between the GNSO and the GAC.  In the interim, the GAC's "Advice" is in
effect, not the GNSO's PDP Recommendation (in spite of the of the fact that
the GNSO is supposed to be the source for GNSO policy).

Hope this helps.

Best regards,

Greg

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>
wrote:

>   Becky,
>
>  In your second slide, it says: „..Implementing *Consensus* Policies..”.
> Although I am not sure if this is supposed to mean that ICANN *only*
> implements policies for which there is consensus, the condition of having
> reached consensus before implementing policy is supposed to be a (high)
>  standard of behavior that should be measured for accountability purposes
>
>  Best,
>
>  Roelof
>
>   From: <Burr>, Becky Burr <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>
> Date: maandag 9 februari 2015 17:03
> To: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>, "
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Additional Document for discussion
>
>    I have made a quick attempt to articulate the standard of behavior
> against which ICANN might be measured for accountability purposes.  It
> roughly corresponds to the Mission Statement and Core Values in the ICANN
> bylaws today, but has some additions that and modifications consistent with
> various suggestions that I’ve heard from the group.  If I missed your
> suggestion, please accept my apologies.  This is just to start the
> discussion.
>
>
>  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: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>
> Date: Monday, February 9, 2015 at 4:38 PM
> To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Revised agenda - Meeting #11
>
>   Dear all,
> In anticipation of your meeting #11, please find attached a revised agenda.
> Thanks
> Best regards
> Alice
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>


-- 

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150216/f296f149/attachment.html>