+1as well -- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Tuesday, 16 February 2016, 01:12PM -05:00 from Matthew Shears < mshears@cdt.org> :
Yes, likewise.
On 2/16/2016 6:10 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
I agree with my colleagues above.
Greg
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Robin Gross < robin@ipjustice.org > wrote:
+1
Robin
On Feb 16, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Edward Morris < egmorris1@toast.net > wrote: My views echo yours, Becky. Thanks Brett for picking up on this.
Ed
Sent from my iPhone
On 16 Feb 2016, at 16:58, Burr, Becky < Becky.Burr@neustar.biz > wrote:
Brett,
My support for the Board’s approach would be limited to cases where the community seeks to recall the Board because its implementation of GAC Advice violates the Bylaws or Articles. In that case, I think that an IRP is the most appropriate, least disruptive approach. I can live with the notion that the community would respect the final determination of an IRP in such cases – and isn’t that what it means for the IRP to be binding ?
If the community seeks to dump the Board based on its implementation of GAC Advice, but where the justification for the use of this community power is something other than a violation of the Bylaws or Articles, then, in my view, the lower threshold should apply and there should be no obligation to file an IRP (which, presumably, would be dismissed on standing grounds).
Bruce – I think we need clarification from you as to the Board’s intent . One could read your proposal as an attempt to limit any use of the spill the Board power in response to the Board’s implementation to GAC Advice to situations where that implementation amounts to a violation of the Bylaws/Articles. This reading would – at least theoretically – materially narrow the spill the board power. So I think Brett is right on the principle. But I also think the read I’ve proposed doesn’t really undermine the Board’s goal either, inasmuch as I believe that the community will be rightly reluctant to spill the Board in response to an action/inaction that is not alleged to violate the Bylaws/Articles.
I suspect there are some details to be worked out on how you resolve a dispute between the Board and the community on whether a spill the Board effort is based on an action/inaction that can be reviewed under the IRP, but I don’t think they are insurmountable.
Becky
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
From: <Schaefer>, Brett < Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org > Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 9:38 AM To: Becky Burr < becky.burr@neustar.biz >, " egmorris1@toast.net " < egmorris1@toast.net >, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com >, " brenda.brewer@icann.org " < brenda.brewer@icann.org >, Accountability Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org > Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #84 - Tuesday, 16 February @ 06:00 UTC
Becky, The Board’s proposal seems to make it mandatory to go to an IRP even if the Board’s decision is clearly within the scope and mission of ICANN. In such a situation, the IRP would obviously fail and the EC would no longer have the option of exercising its final enforcement power of spilling the Board at the lower threshold and without the GAC being a decisional participant even though the original Board Decision was based on consensus GAC advice. As I mentioned last night in my semi-slumber, this would be, in my mind, a loophole to the GAC carve out. Could you point me to the section of the Board’s proposal that says that “the requirement to bring an IRP first could only apply where there are grounds to invoke an IRP”? If that is the case, then my concerns are greatly lessened. Thanks, Brett
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org ] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 2:22 PM To: egmorris1@toast.net ; Paul Rosenzweig; Brenda Brewer; CCWG-Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #84 - Tuesday, 16 February @ 06:00 UTC Not sure that Board comments are being fast tracked, but considered You are correct Ed, that the requirement to bring an IRP first could only apply where there are grounds to invoke an IRP J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz From: Edward Morris < egmorris1@toast.net > Reply-To: " egmorris1@toast.net " < egmorris1@toast.net > Date: Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:08 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com >, " brenda.brewer@icann.org " < brenda.brewer@icann.org >, Accountability Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org >, Becky Burr < becky.burr@neustar.biz > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #84 - Tuesday, 16 February @ 06:00 UTC Hi Becky, I have two concerns here that I hope those with expertise in these specific areas can help me put to rest: ?1. Why are these latest Board objections/proposals being fast tracked within the CCWG at the last minute? Did the Board not have ample opportunity to raise these issues during the normal and proper review of the third draft proposal? Is there something I'm missing here? My belief was that we're at the point of vetting the Supplemental for technical, not substantive, omissions and additions. Should not these Board objections now be included in a Minority Statement, rather than receiving preferential consideration by the entire CCWG? If the answer to that query is in the negative. that substantive revisions may still be adopted, do not our rules mandate consideration at two meetings before any alteration to our proposal should occur? 2. I personally don't have a problem with requiring the community to invoke an IRP before spilling the Board when the reason for the recall was Board implementation of GAC advice when said advice is related to subject matter appropriate for an IRP panel to hear (generally, ICANN acting in a way outside its scope and/or not consistent with its Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation). ?What, though, of GAC consensus advice that is itself outside the scope of an IRP? I'm thinking of consensus GAC advice that is within ICANN's mission and scope, where there is no allegation of a Bylaws or Articles violations, yet whose approval by the Board triggers a community desire to spill the Board. An example could be something related to the delegation of a gTLD that, for some reason, has prompted GAC opposition. The IRP would not act affirmatively in this instance to any request to nullify the Board action because the reasons for the community opposition presumably lay outside the remit of an IRP. Do we then want the fact that the IRP refused to act, because it can't, to then raise the threshold by which Board spillage will occur? I'm not sure that's wise. Of course, as Becky noted I don't anticipate this aspect of our proposal will truly ever come into play. At least I hope its doesn't. That said, we need to design our structures as if it might and raising spill thresholds as a result of an IRP not making a substantive decision on an issue because said issue itself is outside it's remit...do we really want to do this? ? Best, Ed Morris ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From : "Burr, Becky" < Becky.Burr@neustar.biz > Sent : Monday, February 15, 2016 6:26 PM To : "Paul Rosenzweig" < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com >, "Brenda Brewer" < brenda.brewer@icann.org >, "CCWG-Accountability" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org > Subject : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #84 - Tuesday, 16 February @ 06:00 UTC Paul - Are you asking whether we will discuss the proposal that Bruce put on the table regarding the GAC carve out? As I understand it, the proposal would apply only where Board recall was sought in response to Board implementation of GAC consensus advice and the GAC was thus precluded from participating in the EC as a decision maker. In that situation, we reduced the requisite support level from 4 to 3 (to prevent requiring unanimity). I understand that reduction is a matter of concern to the Board. I personally don’t have a lot of trouble with the notion that the community would be required to invoke the IRP process before moving to recall the entire Board in that circumstance. To be candid, my comfort reflects my belief that the Board recall power is nearly illusory, given how disruptive such a step would be. I can’t imagine why one would choose recall over resort to the independent judiciary wherever possible. That said, I agree we should discuss the proposal on our call tomorrow. Becky J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz From: Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com > Date: Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:43 AM To: " brenda.brewer@icann.org " < brenda.brewer@icann.org >, Accountability Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #84 - Tuesday, 16 February @ 06:00 UTC <~WRD000.jpg> Dear Co-Chairs Will the Board’s proposal re: further revisions to the EC process be discussed under Item #2? I would hope that we would have full discussion of this proposed change, which I would be opposed to … Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <image001.jpg> From: Brenda Brewer [ mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org ] Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 8:03 AM To: CCWG-Accountability < accountability-cross-community@icann.org > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #84 - Tuesday, 16 February @ 06:00 UTC Dear all, In preparation for your call #84 – Tuesday, 16 February 2016 at 06:00 – 08:00 UTC ( time converter ), see below a proposed agenda: 1. Opening Remarks 2. Comments on Supplementary Report 3. Budget 4. AOC Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ Thank you! Kind regards, Brenda
<~WRD000.jpg> <image001.jpg> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.
This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community