Seun,

Yes, I think it should be made explicit that GAC advice approved by the Board is subject to IRP challenge and would be bound by the Mission and Scope – just like other Board decisions. The GAC advisory relationship with the Board is rather unique and I think it merits clarification. I would hope that that would not be controversial.

Best,

Brett

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 12:35 PM
To: Schaefer, Brett
Cc: Milton L Mueller; Burr, Becky; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Phil Corwin
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion

On 7 Jan 2016 5:32 PM, "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
>
Even then, the Board must try in good faith to find a compromise solution. This potentially could include GAC advice that goes beyond or is contrary to ICANN’s scope and mission.
>
SO: This is correct and such possibility is applicable in any decision of the board, irrespective of whether it's GAC advice or not. No?

>
The bylaw should clarify that Board-approved GAC advice, even if adopted by consensus, is subject to IRP appeal.”
>
SO: Is there a section of the current proposal that makes board's decision on GAC advice immune to community powers? (with IRP being an escalation path). I will like to see reference to that specific part as I have not seen such yet. The community powers is based on board's action/inaction so I don't understand what clarification is required when no exceptions (in this context) were made in the first place.

Regards

>
>
> This is also why we recommend restricting GAC participation in the Empowered Community to an advisory role as long as it retains this power.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> 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: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 11:12 AM
> To: Schaefer, Brett; Burr, Becky; Mueller, Milton L; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org
>
> Subject: RE: Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion
>
>
>
> But what if the Board cannot muster a 2/3 vote against GAC advice that goes beyond ICANN’s Mission and Core Values?
>
>
>
> Then we have the equivalent of a Constitutional crisis, with the GAC in a position as a member of the empowered community to object to accountability escalation attempts related to the situation.
>
>
>
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
>
> Virtualaw LLC
>
> 1155 F Street, NW
>
> Suite 1050
>
> Washington, DC 20004
>
> 202-559-8597/Direct
>
> 202-559-8750/Fax
>
> 202-255-6172/cell
>
>
>
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>
>
>
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>
>
>
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Brett
> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 11:08 AM
> To: Burr, Becky; Mueller, Milton L; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion
>
>
>
> Yes, that should be clear.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> 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: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz]
> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 11:06 AM
> To: Schaefer, Brett; Mueller, Milton L; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org
> Subject: Re: Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion
> Importance: High
>
>
>
> IMHO, the GAC is not bound by ICANN’s Mission and Core Values. It can issue any Advice it likes. But ICANN can only implement GAC Advice in a manner that is consistent with ICANN’s Mission and Core Values.
>
>
>
> 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: Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 10:48 AM
> To: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu>, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
> Cc: "acct-staff@icann.org" <acct-staff@icann.org>
> Subject: RE: Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion
>
>
>
> Or, perhaps, that GAC advice should not be bound by ICANN’s mission and core values?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> BrettSchaefer
> 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 Mueller, Milton L
> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 10:22 AM
> To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; Becky.Burr@neustar.biz; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion
>
>
>
> Jorge:
>
> Can you please clarify what the implications are of this:
>
>
>
> The GAC further expects that changes to ICANN’s mission and core values should
>
> not constrain the Board from accepting and implementing GAC advice. In
>
>
>
> MM: Do you mean to imply that there should be no limits of ICANN’s mission?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16
>
>
>