On IRP subgroup summary being presented at Johannesburg
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" 2. The standing panel is to be trained by ICANN on DNS technical matters. *For argument, wearing a skeptical hat across the table,* who in ICANN would train the standing panel? Staff? Board? Community? Which part of the Community? Would it stop with training the panel on DNS? Or, extend to impart notions on what would constitute an acceptable ruling and what would not? How independent would the IRP be , if the training is provided by ICANN and support is provided by ICANN? -- Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
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
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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
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@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@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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Expand Article 1 ???? On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@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@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@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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
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@gmail.com> wrote:
Expand Article 1 ????
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@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@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@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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
Greg, I agree with your observations, especially on the work done by this working group and I have ample respect for the process and all the participants. At the same time, I stand by my comment, though late, that Article 1 requires attention, if not immediately, in course of time. In the meantime, ICANN could remain open to the idea that its mission ought not to be so restricted. Thank you. On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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@gmail.com> wrote:
Expand Article 1 ????
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@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@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@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@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@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>
On the contrary, the “closed” nature of ICANN’s mission was critical to the decision of many to support the transition in the first instance. A free-standing organization not bound by a narrow mission statement is scary. Like James, I am glad we put this behind us and I will hope strongly that nobody seeks to reopen the matter. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2017 10:36 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On IRP subgroup summary being presented at Johannesburg Greg, I agree with your observations, especially on the work done by this working group and I have ample respect for the process and all the participants. At the same time, I stand by my comment, though late, that Article 1 requires attention, if not immediately, in course of time. In the meantime, ICANN could remain open to the idea that its mission ought not to be so restricted. Thank you. On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > wrote: 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@gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com> > wrote: Expand Article 1 ???? On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@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@gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn@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@linx.net <mailto:malcolm@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 <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523> 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@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@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@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@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>
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@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@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@gmail.com<mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>> wrote: Expand Article 1 ???? On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@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@gmail.com<mailto:isolatedn@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@linx.net<mailto:malcolm@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<tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523> 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@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@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@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Sivasubramanian M<https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
Dear James Gannon Thank You :) On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 4:40 PM, James Gannon <james@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@icann.org < accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@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@gmail.com> wrote:
Expand Article 1 ????
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@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@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@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@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@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>
participants (5)
-
Greg Shatan -
James Gannon -
Malcolm Hutty -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Sivasubramanian M