[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability

[Schaefer, Brett]

Bernard,

I did not see reference to 1.2(b)(viii), i.e. the phrase “except as provided herein” at the end of the human rights section in the Core Values. I thought that there was general agreement that this created ambiguity on the preceding constraint (“This Core Value does not create and shall not be interpreted to create any additional obligation for ICANN and shall not obligate ICANN to respond to or consider any complaint, request or demand seeking the enforcement of human rights by ICANN”) and that the phrase should be deleted or reworked to remove the possibility that a future change to the bylaws could create such an obligation.

I agree with Milton that the wording in 2.2 and 2.3 is unclear.

Also on 2, correct me if I misremember, but I thought that we agreed that, with the exception of grandfathered RAs and RAAs, all of these agreements (B-D) should be subject to challenge under the RFR or IRP if they are outside the scope and mission. The proposed recommendation simply says that the CCWG did not request these exemptions and “It remains unclear whether they are required.” In addition, when did the CCWG decide that E (the Five-year Strategic Pan and the Five-year Operating Plan existing on 1 October 2016) should be grandfathered and exempt from RFR or IRP challenge? The comment would imply CCWG support for it by not mentioning E among the agreements in question.

It is not clear to me exactly what is being recommended in 2. The intent of other recommendations is clear – strike language, review to ensure consistency, etc. – but 2.3 is just commentary.

Finally, on 9.3, we are asking the Board to “consider addressing this issue if it deems it necessary”? We mention the GAC carve-out in EC rejection actions and Board removal, but not on approval actions. The bylaws (3.2(e)) and the CCWG proposal are clear that the GAC carve-out applies to approval actions. If it is mentioned in these other two instances in Annex D, it should also be mentioned for approval actions in Annex D. This is a matter of consistency. The CCWG should recommend adding the relevant text to Annex D Section 1.4(b).

Thanks,

Brett

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 11:36 AM
To: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability

All,

As discussed on the call this week please find attached the draft response of the CCWG-Accountability to the public consultation on the new Bylaws.

This document was developed from the meeting notes of our call on May 3rd and reviewed by the leadership team.

As discussed at that meeting we are providing the CCWG-Accountability a 72 hour comment period on this draft response
beginning 1800UTC Friday May 6th and closing 1800UTC Monday May 9th.

Please post your comments to the main CCWG-Accountability list, used to send this email, and please use the same SUBJECT to
facilitate tracking of comments (or simply REPLY to this email).

Thank you

Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs

________________________________
Brett Schaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-608-6097
heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160506/16bf464a/attachment.html>