Draft WP 2 Scope, Mechanisms document
All, Attached is a draft scoping document for WP2. Jordan and I will be collaborating to coordinate the WP1 and WP2 scoping documents here in Singapore, so it is very much a draft at this point. Would welcome input, comments, suggestions in the meanwhile. Becky 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<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz
Thanks Becky, Given the fluidity of the situation, I am responding in my personal capacity in order to reply somewhat timely, not having yet had a chance to discuss this with my colleagues. Concerning substantive and procedural requirements near the top of the document, I would say that with respect to the IRP and to some extent Reconsideration Requests (RRs) it would be good to add consideration of: * Monetary award limitations (e.g., a prohibition on any money damages other than direct damages); * Some limited discovery rights (beyond the present ICANN document review policy) to interview witnesses and review documents; and * The precedential nature, or not, of IRP decisions (maybe including on RRs as well as IRPs). The one substantive thing I would like to comment on concerns the word "binding." It seems from our conversation yesterday that you might have a concern with the notion of binding independent review power. I remain of the view that the IRP (or some reviewing body) must have the power to take a decision that has teeth. At the end of the day, we are looking for a check on ICANN given the absence of NTIA. It seems clear that some entity other than ICANN should have the final (well defined and limited) power to act as a backstop. David McAuley From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:55 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Draft WP 2 Scope, Mechanisms document All, Attached is a draft scoping document for WP2. Jordan and I will be collaborating to coordinate the WP1 and WP2 scoping documents here in Singapore, so it is very much a draft at this point. Would welcome input, comments, suggestions in the meanwhile. Becky 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<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
Thanks David, this is helpful. I’m not opposed to binding, just not convinced it is absolutely required 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<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz From: <McAuley>, David <dmcauley@verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 3:33 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: RE: Draft WP 2 Scope, Mechanisms document Thanks Becky, Given the fluidity of the situation, I am responding in my personal capacity in order to reply somewhat timely, not having yet had a chance to discuss this with my colleagues. Concerning substantive and procedural requirements near the top of the document, I would say that with respect to the IRP and to some extent Reconsideration Requests (RRs) it would be good to add consideration of: · Monetary award limitations (e.g., a prohibition on any money damages other than direct damages); · Some limited discovery rights (beyond the present ICANN document review policy) to interview witnesses and review documents; and · The precedential nature, or not, of IRP decisions (maybe including on RRs as well as IRPs). The one substantive thing I would like to comment on concerns the word “binding.” It seems from our conversation yesterday that you might have a concern with the notion of binding independent review power. I remain of the view that the IRP (or some reviewing body) must have the power to take a decision that has teeth. At the end of the day, we are looking for a check on ICANN given the absence of NTIA. It seems clear that some entity other than ICANN should have the final (well defined and limited) power to act as a backstop. David McAuley From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:55 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Draft WP 2 Scope, Mechanisms document All, Attached is a draft scoping document for WP2. Jordan and I will be collaborating to coordinate the WP1 and WP2 scoping documents here in Singapore, so it is very much a draft at this point. Would welcome input, comments, suggestions in the meanwhile. Becky 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<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
participants (2)
-
Burr, Becky -
McAuley, David