Just one addition – although the Bylaws are a little fuzzy on this point, Consensus Policy can only be developed to address issues that are within the “picket fence” - issues related to names and numbers that require/substantially benefit from coordination.  Specification 1 in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and the Registry Agreement lay this out.  In other words, the “picket fence” limits ICANN’s ability to impose obligations on registries and registrars that are outside of its “mission."

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@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz

From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, February 16, 2015 at 1:51 PM
To: Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>
Cc: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Additional Document for discussion

Roelof:

It occurs to me that you might not be clear on what "Consensus Policy" means in this context.

"Consensus Policy" is a specifically defined term used in the ICANN Bylaws and defined in the gTLD Registry Agreement and Registrar Accreditation Agreement.  (To the best of my knowledge, it is not used in the ccTLD context.)  It refers to policy developed through the GNSO Policy Development Process, and specifically to policy which is meant to create binding obligations on gTLD registries and registrars.  Consensus policy is developed by a Working Group, which must approve its recommendations by consensus of the Working Group (such consensus is "rough" consensus rather than "full" consensus).  The potential Consensus Policy must then be approved by a GNSO Council Supermajority vote.  If approved, it is a "PDP Recommendation.  The PDP Recommendation then goes to the ICANN Board.  The Board must then adopt the PDP Recommendation unless it is rejected by a 2/3 vote. The vote is supposed to take place "as soon as feasible, but preferably not later than the second meeting after receipt of a Board Report on the PDP Recommendation, prepared by an ICANN Staff Manager.

I hope this helps you understand what is being discussed.  Becky or others, please feel free to correct or clarify.

In terms of measuring consensus, the Final Report of a PDP Working Group contains a record of the position of each participant with regard to consensus.  I don't think there is any particular need for this Working Group to delve into GNSO PDP Working Group Procedures, at least not as a Work Stream 1 issue.  I assume this was not what you were suggesting, in any event.

There may be accountability issues relating to the Board's actions in approving consensus policy.  For instance, I'm not sure if the Board ever approved or rejected certain PDP Recommendations relating to IGO/INGO identifiers that differed from GAC Policy Advice.  These were before the Board for a vote on 30 April 2014, and the Board tried to broker a compromise, rather than directly face the issue of a "policy collision" between the GNSO and the GAC.  In the interim, the GAC's "Advice" is in effect, not the GNSO's PDP Recommendation (in spite of the of the fact that the GNSO is supposed to be the source for GNSO policy).

Hope this helps.

Best regards,

Greg

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:

Becky,

In your second slide, it says: „..Implementing Consensus Policies..”. Although I am not sure if this is supposed to mean that ICANN only implements policies for which there is consensus, the condition of having reached consensus before implementing policy is supposed to be a (high)  standard of behavior that should be measured for accountability purposes

Best,

Roelof

From: <Burr>, Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>
Date: maandag 9 februari 2015 17:03
To: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Additional Document for discussion

I have made a quick attempt to articulate the standard of behavior against which ICANN might be measured for accountability purposes.  It roughly corresponds to the Mission Statement and Core Values in the ICANN bylaws today, but has some additions that and modifications consistent with various suggestions that I’ve heard from the group.  If I missed your suggestion, please accept my apologies.  This is just to start the discussion.  

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@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz

From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org>
Date: Monday, February 9, 2015 at 4:38 PM
To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Revised agenda - Meeting #11

Dear all,

In anticipation of your meeting #11, please find attached a revised agenda.

Thanks

Best regards

Alice 

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--

Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab

Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet

666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621

Direct  212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022

Fax  212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428

gsshatan@lawabel.com

ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com

www.lawabel.com

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community