July 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) to Host Webinars in Conjunction with Call for Public Comment
by Alissa Cooper July 31, 2015

July 31, 2015

The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) announces today that it will hold two webinars regarding the Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community. The webinars will help the public understand the proposal, the purpose of the ICG’s public comment period, and how to provide public comments. Topics covered will include: · What are the IANA functions? · What is the IANA stewardship transition? · What is being proposed for the transition of the IANA stewardship? · Why is the ICG seeking public comments? · What should commenters focus on? The ICG will hold two webinars at different times to facilitate participation across the time zones: · Thursday 6 August 2015 from 19:00-20:30 UTC (time zone convertor here: http://icgsec.asia/1fB5GMF) · Friday 7 August 2015 from 11:00-12:30 UTC (time zone convertor here: http://icgsec.asia/1IpVZfn) The webinars will include about 45 minutes of presentation material and 45 minutes of Q&A. Webinar details The webinars will be run in an Adobe Connect room https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg/. Please note that the webinar will be conducted in English and will be recorded and transcribed. Live interpretation will be available through Adigo Bridge dial-in numbers using Conference ID codes listed below. A list of country dial-in numbers can be found here: http://adigo.com/icann/. Should there be no appropriate dial-in number for an interested participant, the ICG Secretariat in conjunction with ICANN will provide a dial-out service to that individual – please send dial-out requests to the ICG Secretariat at admin(a)icgsec.asia. Correspondingly, language service Conference ID numbers are listed below: · Français – Conference ID: 75929475 · Español – Conference ID: 68385764 · 中文 – Conference ID: 825702 · Pусский – Conference ID: 345720 · العربية – Conference ID: 82855066 · Português – Conference ID: 759752 Participants who are interested in an English line but are unable to join by way of the Virtual Meeting Room may request a dial-out service by contacting the ICG Secretariat at admin(a)icgsec.asia. For further information about the IANA stewardship transition proposal, please see https://comments.ianacg.org. >

1 0

Fwd: [Ianatransition-comms] ICG Announces Call for Public Comment on IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal
by Mathieu Weill July 31, 2015

July 31, 2015

FYI -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : [Ianatransition-comms] ICG Announces Call for Public Comment on IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Date : Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:43:17 -0400 De : Jennifer Chung <jen(a)icgsec.asia> Pour : IANAtransition-comms(a)ianacg.org The ICG is asking the public to review the Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community. Comments are due by the deadline of 8 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC. Public comment web site:https://comments.ianacg.org <https://comments.ianacg.org/> Webinar details:https://www.ianacg.org/iana-stewardship-transition-coordination-gro… ---- Emily, We have not posted the press release yet we are waiting for ICANN and the final version. Once this is posted and given to us we will reflect that on this announcement. Best Regards, Jennifer

1 0

What are the WS2 activities that ensue from a WS1 bylaws commitment to human rights?
by Avri Doria July 31, 2015

July 31, 2015

Hi, In order to outline some of the work that would need to be done in WS2, given a WS1 bylaws commitment to human rights, e.g. Drazek as ammended by Lisse /Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect the fundamental human rights, inter alia, the exercise of free expression and the free flow of information./ I have extracted the following text from * Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.…> <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.…>* The UN text also contains explanations for each item. But for those who do not have time to read the whole document and Holly's excellent papers on this, this list is a starting place. these guiding principles are based upon fundamental human rights as defined in the UDHR, the ICCPR and the IESCR, i.e. the International Bill of Rights and ILO Pundamental Principles and Rights at Work. In my view, the operational policy already existing in ICANN and being added by WS1 meet many if not most of the conditions already. The list serves as a guideline of issues to be further studied in WS2 as a means of meeting the committment we need to include in WS1. Given an choice I would recommend that the first activity of WS2 would be for appropriate staff to produce a mapping of each of these to the various ICANN principles and operational practices. --- These Guiding Principles are grounded in recognition of: (a) States’ existing obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights andfundamental freedoms; (b) The role of business enterprises as specialized organs of society performing specialized functions, required to comply with all applicable laws and to respect human rights; (c) The need for rights and obligations to be matched to appropriate and effective remedies when breached. (1-10 all pertain to states) *A. Foundational principles* 11. Business enterprises should respect human rights. This means that they should avoid infringing on the human rights of others and should address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved. 12. The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights refers to internationally recognized human rights – understood, at a minimum, as those expressed in the International Bill of Human Rights and the principles concerning fundamental rights set out in the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. 13. The responsibility to respect human rights requires that business enterprises: (a) Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their own activities, and address such impacts when they occur; (b) Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those impacts. 14. The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights applies to all enterprises regardless of their size, sector, operational context, ownership and structure. Nevertheless, the scale and complexity of the means through which enterprises meet that responsibility may vary according to these factors and with the severity of the enterprise’s adverse human rights impacts. 15. In order to meet their responsibility to respect human rights, business enterprises should have in place policies and processes appropriate to their size and circumstances, including: (a) A policy commitment to meet their responsibility to respect human rights; (b) A human rights due diligence process to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their impacts on human rights; (c) Processes to enable the remediation of any adverse human rights impacts they cause or to which they contribute. *B. Operational principles* 16. As the basis for embedding their responsibility to respect human rights, business enterprises should express their commitment to meet this responsibility through a statement of policy that: (a) Is approved at the most senior level of the business enterprise; (b) Is informed by relevant internal and/or external expertise; (c) Stipulates the enterprise’s human rights expectations of personnel, business partners and other parties directly linked to its operations, products or services; (d) Is publicly available and communicated internally and externally to all personnel, business partners and other relevant parties; (e) Is reflected in operational policies and procedures necessary to embed it throughout the business enterprise. *Human rights due diligence* 17. In order to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their adverse human rights impacts, business enterprises should carry out human rights due diligence. The process should include assessing actual and potential human rights impacts, integrating and acting upon the findings, tracking responses, and communicating how impacts are addressed. Human rights due diligence: (a) Should cover adverse human rights impacts that the business enterprise may cause or contribute to through its own activities, or which may be directly linked to its operations, products or services by its business relationships; (b) Will vary in complexity with the size of the business enterprise, the risk of severe human rights impacts, and the nature and context of its operations; (c) Should be ongoing, recognizing that the human rights risks may change over time as the business enterprise’s operations and operating context evolve. 18. In order to gauge human rights risks, business enterprises should identify and assess any actual or potential adverse human rights impacts with which they may be involved either through their own activities or as a result of their business relationships. This process should: (a) Draw on internal and/or independent external human rights expertise; (b) Involve meaningful consultation with potentially affected groups and other relevant stakeholders, as appropriate to the size of the business enterprise and the nature and context of the operation. 19. In order to prevent and mitigate adverse human rights impacts, business enterprises should integrate the findings from their impact assessments across relevant internal functions and processes, and take appropriate action. (a) Effective integration requires that: (i) Responsibility for addressing such impacts is assigned to the appropriate level and function within the business enterprise; (ii) Internal decision-making, budget allocations and oversight processes enable effective responses to such impacts. (b) Appropriate action will vary according to: (i) Whether the business enterprise causes or contributes to an adverse impact, or whether it is involved solely because the impact is directly linked to its operations, products or services by a business relationship; (ii) The extent of its leverage in addressing the adverse impact. 20. In order to verify whether adverse human rights impacts are being addressed, business enterprises should track the effectiveness of their response. Tracking should: (a) Be based on appropriate qualitative and quantitative indicators; (b) Draw on feedback from both internal and external sources, including affected stakeholders. 21. In order to account for how they address their human rights impacts, business enterprises should be prepared to communicate this externally, particularly when concerns are raised by or on behalf of affected stakeholders. Business enterprises whose operations or operating contexts pose risks of severe human rights impacts should report formally on how they address them. In all instances, communications should: (a) Be of a form and frequency that reflect an enterprise’s human rights impacts and that are accessible to its intended audiences; (b) Provide information that is sufficient to evaluate the adequacy of an enterprise’s response to the particular human rights impact involved; (c) In turn not pose risks to affected stakeholders, personnel or to legitimate requirements of commercial confidentiality. *Remediation* 22. Where business enterprises identify that they have caused or contributed to adverse impacts, they should provide for or cooperate in their remediation through legitimate processes. 23. In all contexts, business enterprises should: (a) Comply with all applicable laws and respect internationally recognized human rights, wherever they operate; (b) Seek ways to honour the principles of internationally recognized human rights when faced with conflicting requirements; (c) Treat the risk of causing or contributing to gross human rights abuses as a legal compliance issue wherever they operate. 24. Where it is necessary to prioritize actions to address actual and potential adverse human rights impacts, business enterprises should first seek to prevent and mitigate those that are most severe or where delayed response would make them irremediable. *III. Access to remedy* *A. Foundational principle* 25. As part of their duty to protect against business-related human rights abuse, States must take appropriate steps to ensure, through judicial, administrative, legislative or other appropriate means, that when such abuses occur within their territory and/or jurisdiction those affected have access to effective remedy. *B. Operational principles* *State -based grievance mechanisms* 26 & 27 refer to state obligations *Non-State -based grievance mechanisms* 28. States should consider ways to facilitate access to effective non-State based grievance mechanisms dealing with business-related human rights harms. 29. To make it possible for grievances to be addressed early and remediated directly, business enterprises should establish or participate in effective operational-level grievance mechanisms for individuals and communities who may be adversely impacted. 30. Industry, multi-stakeholder and other collaborative initiatives that are based on respect for human rights-related standards should ensure that effective grievance mechanisms are available. *Effectiveness criteria for non-judicial grievance mechanisms* 31. In order to ensure their effectiveness, non-judicial grievance mechanisms, both State-based and non-State-based, should be: (a) Legitimate: enabling trust from the stakeholder groups for whose use they are intended, and being accountable for the fair conduct of grievance processes; (b) Accessible: being known to all stakeholder groups for whose use they are intended, and providing adequate assistance for those who may face particular barriers to access; (c) Predictable: providing a clear and known procedure with an indicative time frame for each stage, and clarity on the types of process and outcome available and means of monitoring implementation; (d) Equitable: seeking to ensure that aggrieved parties have reasonable access to sources of information, advice and expertise necessary to engage in a grievance process on fair, informed and respectful terms; (e) Transparent: keeping parties to a grievance informed about its progress, and providing sufficient information about the mechanism’s performance to build confidence in its effectiveness and meet any public interest at stake; (f) Rights-compatible: ensuring that outcomes and remedies accord with internationally recognized human rights; (g) A source of continuous learning: drawing on relevant measures to identify lessons for improving the mechanism and preventing future grievances and harms; Operational-level mechanisms should also be: (h) Based on engagement and dialogue: consulting the stakeholder groups for whose use they are intended on their design and performance, and focusing on dialogue as the means to address and resolve grievances. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

4 7

way forward and minority statements
by Thomas Rickert July 31, 2015

July 31, 2015

All, as you will remember, we have discussed our suggested way forward and the question of minority statements in our call yesterday. Nonetheless, we would like to offer some more information on this. We would like to present to the community not only a draft report, but a consensus proposal. We do hope to have reached consensus on all questions so there will be no need for an additional determination of consensus after the public comment period unless the community input requires us to revisit substantial parts of our proposal. 1. We suggest you file a minority statement if you object to the overall set of recommendations. The minority statement will be referred to in an appendix to the report. 2. We suggest you provide us with your dissenting opinion to individual questions so that we can include it in the body of the report. We already heard from individuals that they appreciate this option as they do not wish their objection to an individual aspect of the report to be perceived as opposition to the overall approach we are taking. If you consider using this option, please use the following format to help add value to the proposal: i. raise your concern ii. provide a rationale for your concern iii. please offer an alternative suggestion In order for your statements (both minority statements and dissenting opinions on individual questions) to be published at the same time as the report will be published, they need to be received by rapporteurs, co-chairs or staff by 12.00 UTC on the 31st of July. Thanks, Thomas PS: In case we do not reach consensus but can only present a draft, the situation is not different from the first report and we will not have minority statements for such report. According to our charter, minority statements offer a chance to oppose to a consensus. In the absence of consensus, there is no need for minority statements. Please note that in this case, we will still allow for minority statement to be added to our final report.

22 56

IRP text following call with Malcolm
by Burr, Becky July 31, 2015

July 31, 2015

Sending again 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(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz From: <Burr>, Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 4:20 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: [WP2] IRP text from Initial Draft Report revised to reflect our work These are the current docs 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(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 3:00 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: "wp2(a)icann.org<mailto:wp2@icann.org>" <wp2(a)icann.org<mailto:wp2@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [WP2] IRP text from Initial Draft Report revised to reflect our work I have PDF'd Becky's redline just sent, and reattach the Word and send to the CCWG as well as back to WP2 On 31 July 2015 at 06:54, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> wrote: J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: <Burr>, Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 12:48 PM To: "wp2(a)icann.org<mailto:wp2@icann.org>" <wp2(a)icann.org<mailto:wp2@icann.org>> Cc: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>>, "grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>" <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Subject: IRP text from Initial Draft Report revised to reflect our work With huge apologies for late delivery, I’ve attached a draft of the report text revised to reflect our decisions. I am willing to put the draft bylaws language in the report as an appendix, but I don’t think its fully cooked right now. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> _______________________________________________ WP2 mailing list WP2(a)icann.org<mailto:WP2@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet

4 8

Revised Fundamental Bylaws section for 2nd draft proposal
by Steve DelBianco July 31, 2015

July 31, 2015

We displayed and discussed this document on CCWG call Tue 29-July. Circulating this just so we have it for Thursday’s doc review. The only new text arose from remarks by Holly and Rosemary earlier this week, regarding the Single Member voting: Any change to ICANN’s A change to the Articles of Incorporation would require approval by both Board and Members: “9. These Articles may be amended by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the directors of the Corporation. When the Corporation has members, any such amendment must be ratified by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the members voting on any proposed amendment.” Under the proposal for the would require 2/3 vote of the Board and 2/3 vote of the Community Mechanism as Sole Member, the Member would need to approve any change to ICANN’s present status as a California nonprofit public benefit corporation. —Steve — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206

2 3

Malcom Hutty/ BBurr Consolidated draft on IRP text
by Burr, Becky July 30, 2015

July 30, 2015

And if you do not see redlines in each document, I need a new computer. 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(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz

1 0

Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG Acct Meeting #47 - 30 July
by Kimberly Carlson July 30, 2015

July 30, 2015

Hello all, The recordings and transcript for the CCWG Acct Meeting #47 held on 30 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/JYtCAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Kim Action Items Action (Sebastien): send comments in writing Action (Christopher) send comments in writing Action: Delete the last 2 sentences in paragraph of document Action: consider Kavouss' language in second to last paragraph on page 1: The proposed bylaws change recognizes that GAC may wish to consider, if necessary, to amend its consensus rule to something less than "in the absence of any formal objection" while still requiring ICANN to try "to find a mutually acceptable solution." Notes 1. Opening Remarks Reconvening after 4h break On audio only: * Samantha Eisner on audio only (member) 2. Update on voting weights discussion per legal advice * Proposal to do 5x5 + 2x2 , giving SSAC and RSSAC only 2 votes each and not 5. *Robin Gross will file dissenting opinion on this issue. Her proposal: ratio of 2 GNSO, 2 ccNSO, 2 ASO, 1 ALAC and liaison roles for the GAC, RSSAC and SSAC *Support for the 5x5 + 2x2 voting model? Green Ticks: 16 (+2 from Tijani Ben Jemaa and Jonathan Zuck) Red Crosses: 2 * ---> moving forward with 5x5 + 2x2 voting model 3. Review of previous call (11:00 UTC) Human rights: * updated text (please see page 4, 2nd row, red text). *Greg Shatan's text suggestion: "Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized fundamental human rights." *Can you accept the language in the document? Green ticks (yes): 12 Red Cross (no): 6 + Jonathan Zuck and Tijani *recap: include in the report a statement that our group agrees that an additional commitment to human rights in WS1 is advisable and is currently investigating a proper language. Questions: 1. Do you want to see some human rights language in that box with an 8 and with red text. * Green ticks (yes): avri, CLO, David, Gary, Jordan, Jorge, Julie, Mathieu, Robin, Thomas (10) * Red crosses (no): Tijani, Izumi, Arasteh, Greg, Jonathan, Par, Steve, Samantha (8) 2. If language is included, do you prefer what is written there suggested by Keith, or do you prefer Greg's alternative? * Green Ticks (Keith): 8 * Red Crosses (Greg): 11 * If you do not tick anything, you indicate that you don't like either text Greg Shatan's text suggestion: "Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized fundamental human rights." Do you agree that we mention the recongnition of the human rights in the bylaws at WS1 while the details would be worked out in WS2? * Green (yes): arasteh, Jonathan, Mathieu, Par, Robin, Thomas, Martin, Avri (8) * Red (no): greg, Sam, Sebastien, Becky, (4) Exec Summary new version circulated before this call Updates include: * WS1 definition included * Language to clarify that powers are escalation path * Added mention of IFR challenge (Sabine's point) * Removed () around Human rights WS2 issue. * Robin's language Action (Sebastien): send comments in writing Action (Christopher) send comments in writing 4. Review of XPlane graphics led by Thomas No objections Stress Test #18 * GAC members opposed to reference to specific government opposition * Not enough support for removing stress test #18 altogether Action: Delete the last 2 sentences in paragraph of document Action: consider Kavouss' language in second to last paragraph on page 1: The proposed bylaws change recognizes that GAC may wish to consider, if necessary, to amend its consensus rule to something less than "in the absence of any formal objection" while still requiring ICANN to try "to find a mutually acceptable solution." Independent Review Process Deadline 16:00 UTC on Friday 5. Procedural approach for calls today and for Public Comment * Freeze starts on Friday 31 July at 18:00 UTC * Minority Statements are due by Saturday at 12:00 UTC * Publication on Monday 3 August 6. AOB Webinars on 4 & 7 August Link to the Webinar announcement: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-30-en 4 August from 19:00 - 21:00 UTC 7 August from 07:00 - 09:00 UTC Webinars will be interpreted in 5 UN languages plus PT Call on 4 August cancelled (replaced by webinar) 7. Closing remarks Bye!!

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP2] IRP text from Initial Draft Report revised to reflect our work
by Jordan Carter July 30, 2015

July 30, 2015

I have PDF'd Becky's redline just sent, and reattach the Word and send to the CCWG as well as back to WP2 On 31 July 2015 at 06:54, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz> wrote: > > 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(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz > > From: <Burr>, Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz> > Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 12:48 PM > To: "wp2(a)icann.org" <wp2(a)icann.org> > Cc: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com>, " > grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org" <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> > Subject: IRP text from Initial Draft Report revised to reflect our work > > With huge apologies for late delivery, I’ve attached a draft of the report > text revised to reflect our decisions. I am willing to put the draft > bylaws language in the report as an appendix, but I don’t think its fully > cooked right now. > > > 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(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz > > _______________________________________________ > WP2 mailing list > WP2(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2 > > -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

4 5

Fwd: [WP2] IRP text from Initial Draft Report revised to reflect our work
by Jordan Carter July 30, 2015

July 30, 2015

here was Malcolm's doc I have taken the liberty of PDFing it as well. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm(a)linx.net> Date: 31 July 2015 at 06:15 Subject: Re: [WP2] IRP text from Initial Draft Report revised to reflect our work To: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz>, "wp2(a)icann.org" <wp2(a)icann.org> On 30/07/2015 17:49, Burr, Becky wrote: > With huge apologies for late delivery, I’ve attached a draft of the > report text revised to reflect our decisions. I am willing to put the > draft bylaws language in the report as an appendix, but I don’t think > its fully cooked right now. Dear Becky, Thank you for this, which crossed with my private message to you. Please find attached a marked up version. My changes are mainly references to items that we agreed to include in the draft bylaws language, but are not mentioned in your text. I also propose one additional paragraph of introduction, rebutting the suggestion that this moves us from a multistakeholder body to create an International Court with its own body of international law. Regarding the "cookedness" of the draft bylaws language, we did go through it line-by-line and make our respective compromises and formed a consensus. Do you really propose to re-open those issues? Or do you just mean reformatting it for redlining? Malcolm. > > 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(a)neustar.biz > <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz > > > > _______________________________________________ > WP2 mailing list > WP2(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2 > -- 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 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA _______________________________________________ WP2 mailing list WP2(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

1 0