[CCWG-ACCT] On IRP subgroup summary being presented at Johannesburg

Sun Jun 25 15:55:34 UTC 2017

Dear James Gannon

Thank You :)

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 4:40 PM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:

> From the peanut gallery, I cannot believe that we are having this
> conversation after the last 2 years of what we went through.
>
>
> Full agreement with Greg.
>
>
> -James
> ------------------------------
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Greg
> Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* 25 June 2017 12:37:20
> *To:* Sivasubramanian M
> *Cc:* CCWG Accountability
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On IRP subgroup summary being presented at
> Johannesburg
>
> Workstream 1 spent a huge amount of time on ICANN's Mission, Commitments
> and Core Values.  What we now have is result of many many discussions about
> the scope of ICANN's Mission.  Whether or not you agree with all the
> elements (and I don't), if you respect the process (imperfect though it may
> be), you need to respect the result.  Discussions of expanding Article 1
> are tantamount to asking for another bite at the apple within the same
> Working Group.
>
> Greg
>
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Expand Article 1 ????
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is a distinction without a difference.  ICANN's Mission is set
>>> forth in Article 1 of the Bylaws.  Thus, if ICANN exceeds its Mission, it
>>> contravenes its Bylaws.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Malcolm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for explaining the context. But I was actually trying to take
>>>> this reference to mission and bylaws somewhat beyond the immediate context.
>>>> ICANN's mission at a Global entity operating in Global Public Interest
>>>> ought not to be straight-jacketed. If limited, ICANN would be severely
>>>> restrained from doing what it takes to care for the DNS. Section 4.3 needs
>>>> an amendment, even if it is late into the work stream to make this
>>>> suggestion, as IRP ought not to be restrained by this limited view of
>>>> ICANN's mission. The task before the IRP is to examine if ICANN CONTRAVENED
>>>> its bylaws and not if it EXCEEDED its mission.
>>>>
>>>> Sivasubramanian M
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 25/06/2017 08:26, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
>>>>> > Hello
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Unless there are unspoken and unseen merits, I have some concerns on
>>>>> > some aspects of the summary:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > 1.  The idea of constraining ICANN to its bylaws figures very
>>>>> > prominently in the summary, defined as one of the pillars, not
>>>>> really a
>>>>> > supportive pillar, but sort of a not so well thought of negative
>>>>> > command, " Don't allow ICANN to exceed its mission"
>>>>>
>>>>> David was attempting to summarise a very long and extremely complex
>>>>> instrument, which was negotiated in detail as part of WS1/transition
>>>>> negotiations.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe David may have been referring in the "pillars" to section 4.3
>>>>> (a) of the bylaws which sets out the "purposes of the IRP".
>>>>>
>>>>> This says, in part,
>>>>>
>>>>> "The IRP is intended to hear and resolve Disputes for the following
>>>>> purposes ("Purposes of the IRP"):
>>>>>
>>>>> (i) Ensure that ICANN does not exceed the scope of its Mission and
>>>>> otherwise complies with its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws.
>>>>>
>>>>> [....continues]"
>>>>>
>>>>> Moreover, we need to remember that the IRP is only available under
>>>>> specific circumstances. Essentially (and this may be a slight
>>>>> oversimplification), to use the IRP you have to be making a claim that
>>>>> ICANN breached its own bylaws, not merely that you would have preferred
>>>>> it acted differently. The extent of the Mission (which is broad, but
>>>>> clearly limited) and the instruction to act only within the scope of
>>>>> that Mission, are both set out in the bylaws. So the above extract
>>>>> should be understood in that context.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that provide sufficient context to David's remarks?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>             Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>>>>>    Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
>>>>>  London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>>>>>
>>>>>                  London Internet Exchange Ltd
>>>>>            Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ
>>>>>
>>>>>          Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>>>>>        Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
>>
>
>

-- 
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20170625/a763c429/attachment.html>