Reference for legal subteam
FYI, ARIN has had an opportunity to take a looks at ICANN's Bylaws with legal feedback from its lawyers, which may be of an interest for legal subteam. This is just sharing it for your reference, simply some legal research work that ARIN sought & which may be useful for the CCWG's groups reference and not a recommendation. Thanks, Izumi
Yes indeed Izumi, I like the fact that it's short and focused in addressing it's goals. I think the ccwg legal firms can learn some idea in format of providing their recommendations. Thanks for the share. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 7 Apr 2015 05:25, "Izumi Okutani" <izumi@nic.ad.jp> wrote:
FYI, ARIN has had an opportunity to take a looks at ICANN's Bylaws with legal feedback from its lawyers, which may be of an interest for legal subteam. This is just sharing it for your reference, simply some legal research work that ARIN sought & which may be useful for the CCWG's groups reference and not a recommendation.
Thanks, Izumi
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Very focused and clear, could be easily implemented. Erika Sent from my iPhone
On 07 Apr 2015, at 06:24, Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp> wrote:
FYI, ARIN has had an opportunity to take a looks at ICANN's Bylaws with legal feedback from its lawyers, which may be of an interest for legal subteam. This is just sharing it for your reference, simply some legal research work that ARIN sought & which may be useful for the CCWG's groups reference and not a recommendation.
Thanks, Izumi <ARIN Memo on Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments.pdf> <ARIN Proposed Amendments for ICANN re Designators.pdf> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
This looks like an excellent idea and solution to me. Provides real accountability without risk of upsetting the balance of things. The only thing I'd be concerned about is writing the Nominating Committee into the next iteration of ICANN. The Nomcom was a fudge to deal with concerns over directly elected board members. Over the years it has grown more and more anachronistic. Most recently it's own chair elect railed against how corrupt it had gotten. I would love to see us pull out the Nomcom while there is the opportunity to clean house. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
Very focused and clear, could be easily implemented. Erika Sent from my iPhone
On 07 Apr 2015, at 06:24, Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp> wrote:
FYI, ARIN has had an opportunity to take a looks at ICANN's Bylaws with legal feedback from its lawyers, which may be of an interest for legal subteam. This is just sharing it for your reference, simply some legal research work that ARIN sought & which may be useful for the CCWG's groups reference and not a recommendation.
Thanks, Izumi <ARIN Memo on Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments.pdf> <ARIN Proposed Amendments for ICANN re Designators.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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
The Special Accountability Meeting could provide an ongoing avenue to make improvements to the accountability process and/or to respond to unforeseen issues without resorting to a wholesale review. In that sense it could provide an additional layer of certainty. Jacob Malthouse Co-founder & Director, Big Room Inc. 778-960-6527 www.bigroom.ca On 7 April 2015 at 08:40, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
This looks like an excellent idea and solution to me. Provides real accountability without risk of upsetting the balance of things.
The only thing I'd be concerned about is writing the Nominating Committee into the next iteration of ICANN.
The Nomcom was a fudge to deal with concerns over directly elected board members.
Over the years it has grown more and more anachronistic. Most recently it's own chair elect railed against how corrupt it had gotten.
I would love to see us pull out the Nomcom while there is the opportunity to clean house.
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
Very focused and clear, could be easily implemented. Erika
Sent from my iPhone
On 07 Apr 2015, at 06:24, Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp> wrote:
FYI, ARIN has had an opportunity to take a looks at ICANN's Bylaws with legal feedback from its lawyers, which may be of an interest for legal subteam. This is just sharing it for your reference, simply some legal research work that ARIN sought & which may be useful for the CCWG's groups reference and not a recommendation.
Thanks, Izumi <ARIN Memo on Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments.pdf> <ARIN Proposed Amendments for ICANN re Designators.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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
I like your idea Jacob. I think ICANN has gone too far down the route of heavy, formal reviews. If there is a group that the Board is effectively obliged to listen to, then small improvements to accountability processes can be made over time with focussed, more frequent discussions. Kieren On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Jacob Malthouse <jacob@bigroom.ca> wrote:
The Special Accountability Meeting could provide an ongoing avenue to make improvements to the accountability process and/or to respond to unforeseen issues without resorting to a wholesale review. In that sense it could provide an additional layer of certainty.
Jacob Malthouse Co-founder & Director, Big Room Inc. 778-960-6527 www.bigroom.ca
On 7 April 2015 at 08:40, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
This looks like an excellent idea and solution to me. Provides real accountability without risk of upsetting the balance of things.
The only thing I'd be concerned about is writing the Nominating Committee into the next iteration of ICANN.
The Nomcom was a fudge to deal with concerns over directly elected board members.
Over the years it has grown more and more anachronistic. Most recently it's own chair elect railed against how corrupt it had gotten.
I would love to see us pull out the Nomcom while there is the opportunity to clean house.
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
Very focused and clear, could be easily implemented. Erika
Sent from my iPhone
On 07 Apr 2015, at 06:24, Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp> wrote:
FYI, ARIN has had an opportunity to take a looks at ICANN's Bylaws with legal feedback from its lawyers, which may be of an interest for legal subteam. This is just sharing it for your reference, simply some legal research work that ARIN sought & which may be useful for the CCWG's groups reference and not a recommendation.
Thanks, Izumi <ARIN Memo on Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments.pdf> <ARIN Proposed Amendments for ICANN re Designators.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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
Hello Kieran,
I think ICANN has gone too far down the route of heavy, formal reviews. If there is a group that the Board is effectively obliged to listen to, then small improvements to accountability processes can be made over time with focussed, more frequent discussions.
Agreed. WE have at least 8 reviews I thin coming up in the next 12 months or so. Each review kicks of $ millions of work for consultants – that doesn’t always produce results that justify the cost and time of all involved. I am thinking that the next round of reviews should focus on assessing whether the changes made from the last review have been effective – and potentially refine those changes further so they are effective. These reviews should be time boxed – e.g to take the period starting and end with an ICANN public meeting- rather than year long reviews that kick of 5 years of project work. For example in the WHOIS area – the registrar agreement were changed to require email and postal address checks. It would be worth seeing if these have made any dent in making it easier to track down criminals. Regards Bruce Tonkin
EXACTLY Jonathan Zuck President 202-331-2130 X 101 | jzuck@actonline.org<mailto:jzuck@actonline.org> | Skype: jvzuck ACT | The App Association [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/twitter.png]<https://twitter.com/actonline> [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/fb.png]<https://www.facebook.com/actonline.org> [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/actonline.png]<http://actonline.org> ________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 6:46 AM To: Kieren McCarthy; Jacob Malthouse Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Reference for legal subteam Hello Kieran,
I think ICANN has gone too far down the route of heavy, formal reviews. If there is a group that the Board is effectively obliged to listen to, then small improvements to accountability processes can be made over time with focussed, more frequent discussions.
Agreed. WE have at least 8 reviews I thin coming up in the next 12 months or so. Each review kicks of $ millions of work for consultants - that doesn't always produce results that justify the cost and time of all involved. I am thinking that the next round of reviews should focus on assessing whether the changes made from the last review have been effective - and potentially refine those changes further so they are effective. These reviews should be time boxed - e.g to take the period starting and end with an ICANN public meeting- rather than year long reviews that kick of 5 years of project work. For example in the WHOIS area - the registrar agreement were changed to require email and postal address checks. It would be worth seeing if these have made any dent in making it easier to track down criminals. Regards Bruce Tonkin
I am 100 percent with you on this Bruce. I recall Vint Cerf telling me that he felt ICANN lost a couple of good years with what he called 'navel gazing' in the last big shakeup. There is a strong tendency in the people willing to obsess over ICANN's functioning to create over complicated, over formal structures and processes. I think we have seen it again in the CWG. Of course, while ICANN corporate continues to resist real accountability, less formal reviews are likely to be seen as pointless. But if the Board will open up the organization more to real accountability, then I think we can start avoiding the huge time and money suck of these reviews that have limited useful impact. Less navel gazing, more DNS fixing. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:46 AM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Kieran,
I think ICANN has gone too far down the route of heavy, formal reviews. If there is a group that the Board is effectively obliged to listen to, then small improvements to accountability processes can be made over time with focussed, more frequent discussions. Agreed. WE have at least 8 reviews I thin coming up in the next 12 months or so. Each review kicks of $ millions of work for consultants – that doesn’t always produce results that justify the cost and time of all involved. I am thinking that the next round of reviews should focus on assessing whether the changes made from the last review have been effective – and potentially refine those changes further so they are effective. These reviews should be time boxed – e.g to take the period starting and end with an ICANN public meeting- rather than year long reviews that kick of 5 years of project work. For example in the WHOIS area – the registrar agreement were changed to require email and postal address checks. It would be worth seeing if these have made any dent in making it easier to track down criminals. Regards Bruce Tonkin
Hi, Is the ARIN 'proposal' something that is going to be introduced into the CCWG list of Work Items and items for legal advice? avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Avri, It will be referred to outside counsel referred for legal advice and response. Greg *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 <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>* On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Is the ARIN 'proposal' something that is going to be introduced into the CCWG list of Work Items and items for legal advice?
avri
------------------------------ [image: Avast logo] <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Greg could you clarify your statement, do you mean it will be referred to ccwg legal council for advice? I hope you know the legal recommendation from ARIN is indeed from "outside council" (outside in the sense of "ICANN independent"). If that is what you meant then I think it's fair enough. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 8 Apr 2015 18:21, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Avri,
It will be referred to outside counsel referred for legal advice and response.
Greg
*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 <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Is the ARIN 'proposal' something that is going to be introduced into the CCWG list of Work Items and items for legal advice?
avri
------------------------------ [image: Avast logo] <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ 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
Seun, Yes, I meant the CCWG's outside counsel (Sidley/A&C). Greg *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 <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>* On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Greg could you clarify your statement, do you mean it will be referred to ccwg legal council for advice? I hope you know the legal recommendation from ARIN is indeed from "outside council" (outside in the sense of "ICANN independent"). If that is what you meant then I think it's fair enough.
Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 8 Apr 2015 18:21, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Avri,
It will be referred to outside counsel referred for legal advice and response.
Greg
*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 <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Is the ARIN 'proposal' something that is going to be introduced into the CCWG list of Work Items and items for legal advice?
avri
------------------------------ [image: Avast logo] <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ 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
Hello Kieran,
But if the Board will open up the organization more to real accountability, then I think we can start avoiding the huge time and money suck of these reviews that have limited useful impact. Less navel gazing, more DNS fixing.
That is fine by me. I am actually looking forward to the improvements that will come out of this CCWG. This group has been particularly thorough and is also devoting a huge amount of time. As I think you have pointed out - the one risk is trying to tackle too much and not staying focused on a few critical changes that can be implemented relatively quickly. I would rather have a few changes worked out in detail that can go straight to implementation - rather than a high level series of statements such as review the reconsideration process and review the ombudsman function. The Board doesn't make arbitrary changes to the accountability mechanisms on its own volition - it relies on the community process to recommend the changes, and the Board needs to make sure that we implement the outcomes effectively. I am focussed for example on making sure that the ARTR2 recommendations are implemented properly and that the implementation is subject to appropriate public review. Regards Bruce Tonkin
participants (9)
-
Avri Doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
Erika Mann -
Greg Shatan -
Izumi Okutani -
Jacob Malthouse -
Jonathan Zuck -
Kieren McCarthy -
Seun Ojedeji