CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability
All, As discussed on the call this week please find attached the draft response of the CCWG-Accountability to the public consultation on the new Bylaws. This document was developed from the meeting notes of our call on May 3rd and reviewed by the leadership team. As discussed at that meeting we are providing the CCWG-Accountability a 72 hour comment period on this draft response beginning 1800UTC Friday May 6th and closing 1800UTC Monday May 9th. Please post your comments to the main CCWG-Accountability list, used to send this email, and please use the same SUBJECT to facilitate tracking of comments (or simply REPLY to this email). Thank you Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
Bernard One quick comment. I was pleased to see the renewals of the RA/RAA flagged in 2.2. I think the comment is attempting to do the right thing, but I find the language phrased in a way that seems to create an unintentional ambiguity. Under 2.2 you say: “…as long as these renewals did not include any new term based on previously agreed language. Any new terms would however need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.” I do not understand the function or intent of the words “based on previously agreed language.” If the language is previously agreed, how can it be a new term? Did you mean to simply say: “…as long as these renewals did not include any new terms. Any new terms would need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.” --MM From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 11:36 AM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability All, As discussed on the call this week please find attached the draft response of the CCWG-Accountability to the public consultation on the new Bylaws. This document was developed from the meeting notes of our call on May 3rd and reviewed by the leadership team. As discussed at that meeting we are providing the CCWG-Accountability a 72 hour comment period on this draft response beginning 1800UTC Friday May 6th and closing 1800UTC Monday May 9th. Please post your comments to the main CCWG-Accountability list, used to send this email, and please use the same SUBJECT to facilitate tracking of comments (or simply REPLY to this email). Thank you Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
Also, related to this, shouldn’t the recommendation in 2.3 propose adding this language to the bylaws? “…as long as these renewals did not include any new terms. Any new terms would need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.” From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 2:16 PM To: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability Bernard One quick comment. I was pleased to see the renewals of the RA/RAA flagged in 2.2. I think the comment is attempting to do the right thing, but I find the language phrased in a way that seems to create an unintentional ambiguity. Under 2.2 you say: “…as long as these renewals did not include any new term based on previously agreed language. Any new terms would however need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.” I do not understand the function or intent of the words “based on previously agreed language.” If the language is previously agreed, how can it be a new term? Did you mean to simply say: “…as long as these renewals did not include any new terms. Any new terms would need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.” --MM From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 11:36 AM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability All, As discussed on the call this week please find attached the draft response of the CCWG-Accountability to the public consultation on the new Bylaws. This document was developed from the meeting notes of our call on May 3rd and reviewed by the leadership team. As discussed at that meeting we are providing the CCWG-Accountability a 72 hour comment period on this draft response beginning 1800UTC Friday May 6th and closing 1800UTC Monday May 9th. Please post your comments to the main CCWG-Accountability list, used to send this email, and please use the same SUBJECT to facilitate tracking of comments (or simply REPLY to this email). Thank you Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
The language may be read to imply that the addition of any new terms would take those agreements out of the grandfathering altogether, which is not what was intended – only the new terms. I suggest clarifying that as follows - Previous discussions within the CCWG-Accountability while preparing the Bylaws Draft led to the conclusion that grandfathering of renewals were acceptable for these types of agreements, but would not extend to any new term or condition which was not based on previously agreed language. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 2:21 PM To: Mueller, Milton L; Bernard Turcotte; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability Also, related to this, shouldn’t the recommendation in 2.3 propose adding this language to the bylaws? “…as long as these renewals did not include any new terms. Any new terms would need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.” From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 2:16 PM To: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability Bernard One quick comment. I was pleased to see the renewals of the RA/RAA flagged in 2.2. I think the comment is attempting to do the right thing, but I find the language phrased in a way that seems to create an unintentional ambiguity. Under 2.2 you say: “…as long as these renewals did not include any new term based on previously agreed language. Any new terms would however need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.” I do not understand the function or intent of the words “based on previously agreed language.” If the language is previously agreed, how can it be a new term? Did you mean to simply say: “…as long as these renewals did not include any new terms. Any new terms would need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.” --MM From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 11:36 AM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability All, As discussed on the call this week please find attached the draft response of the CCWG-Accountability to the public consultation on the new Bylaws. This document was developed from the meeting notes of our call on May 3rd and reviewed by the leadership team. As discussed at that meeting we are providing the CCWG-Accountability a 72 hour comment period on this draft response beginning 1800UTC Friday May 6th and closing 1800UTC Monday May 9th. Please post your comments to the main CCWG-Accountability list, used to send this email, and please use the same SUBJECT to facilitate tracking of comments (or simply REPLY to this email). Thank you Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs ================================================================= Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices@timewarner.com<mailto:ITServices@timewarner.com> ================================================================= ================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. =================================================================
Bradley Your proposed modification is on the right track, but I have trouble with the vagueness of “based on previously agreed language.” I see endless debates about whether some new term is “based on” agreed language or not. So why not just say this: “Previous discussions within the CCWG-Accountability while preparing the Bylaws Draft led to the conclusion that grandfathering of renewals were acceptable for these types of agreements, but would not extend to any new term or condition.” Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology From: Silver, Bradley [mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com] Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 3:12 PM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability The language may be read to imply that the addition of any new terms would take those agreements out of the grandfathering altogether, which is not what was intended – only the new terms. I suggest clarifying that as follows - Previous discussions within the CCWG-Accountability while preparing the Bylaws Draft led to the conclusion that grandfathering of renewals were acceptable for these types of agreements, but would not extend to any new term or condition which was not based on previously agreed language. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 2:21 PM To: Mueller, Milton L; Bernard Turcotte; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability Also, related to this, shouldn’t the recommendation in 2.3 propose adding this language to the bylaws? “…as long as these renewals did not include any new terms. Any new terms would need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.” From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 2:16 PM To: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability Bernard One quick comment. I was pleased to see the renewals of the RA/RAA flagged in 2.2. I think the comment is attempting to do the right thing, but I find the language phrased in a way that seems to create an unintentional ambiguity. Under 2.2 you say: “…as long as these renewals did not include any new term based on previously agreed language. Any new terms would however need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.” I do not understand the function or intent of the words “based on previously agreed language.” If the language is previously agreed, how can it be a new term? Did you mean to simply say: “…as long as these renewals did not include any new terms. Any new terms would need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.” --MM From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 11:36 AM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability All, As discussed on the call this week please find attached the draft response of the CCWG-Accountability to the public consultation on the new Bylaws. This document was developed from the meeting notes of our call on May 3rd and reviewed by the leadership team. As discussed at that meeting we are providing the CCWG-Accountability a 72 hour comment period on this draft response beginning 1800UTC Friday May 6th and closing 1800UTC Monday May 9th. Please post your comments to the main CCWG-Accountability list, used to send this email, and please use the same SUBJECT to facilitate tracking of comments (or simply REPLY to this email). Thank you Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs ================================================================= Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices@timewarner.com<mailto:ITServices@timewarner.com> ================================================================= ================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. =================================================================
Thanks Milton – I agree “based on previously agreed language” could be unclear. I’d prefer to have language which preserve grandfathering for terms which are not substantively different from an agreed term. Merely tweaking the phrasing of a term or condition without changing its substance, shouldn’t exclude a term from the grandfathering – I don’t think that’s what we intended. From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu] Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 11:00 AM To: Silver, Bradley; Bernard Turcotte; Accountability Cross Community Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability Bradley Your proposed modification is on the right track, but I have trouble with the vagueness of “based on previously agreed language.” I see endless debates about whether some new term is “based on” agreed language or not. So why not just say this: “Previous discussions within the CCWG-Accountability while preparing the Bylaws Draft led to the conclusion that grandfathering of renewals were acceptable for these types of agreements, but would not extend to any new term or condition.” Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology From: Silver, Bradley [mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com] Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 3:12 PM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability The language may be read to imply that the addition of any new terms would take those agreements out of the grandfathering altogether, which is not what was intended – only the new terms. I suggest clarifying that as follows - Previous discussions within the CCWG-Accountability while preparing the Bylaws Draft led to the conclusion that grandfathering of renewals were acceptable for these types of agreements, but would not extend to any new term or condition which was not based on previously agreed language. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 2:21 PM To: Mueller, Milton L; Bernard Turcotte; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability Also, related to this, shouldn’t the recommendation in 2.3 propose adding this language to the bylaws? “…as long as these renewals did not include any new terms. Any new terms would need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.” From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 2:16 PM To: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability Bernard One quick comment. I was pleased to see the renewals of the RA/RAA flagged in 2.2. I think the comment is attempting to do the right thing, but I find the language phrased in a way that seems to create an unintentional ambiguity. Under 2.2 you say: “…as long as these renewals did not include any new term based on previously agreed language. Any new terms would however need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.” I do not understand the function or intent of the words “based on previously agreed language.” If the language is previously agreed, how can it be a new term? Did you mean to simply say: “…as long as these renewals did not include any new terms. Any new terms would need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.” --MM From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 11:36 AM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability All, As discussed on the call this week please find attached the draft response of the CCWG-Accountability to the public consultation on the new Bylaws. This document was developed from the meeting notes of our call on May 3rd and reviewed by the leadership team. As discussed at that meeting we are providing the CCWG-Accountability a 72 hour comment period on this draft response beginning 1800UTC Friday May 6th and closing 1800UTC Monday May 9th. Please post your comments to the main CCWG-Accountability list, used to send this email, and please use the same SUBJECT to facilitate tracking of comments (or simply REPLY to this email). Thank you Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs ================================================================= Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices@timewarner.com<mailto:ITServices@timewarner.com> ================================================================= ================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. ================================================================= ================================================================= Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices@timewarner.com<mailto:ITServices@timewarner.com> ================================================================= ================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. =================================================================
There's a problem with the recommendation for Section 1.1(c). Specifically, the "Recommendation" is incorrect (based on both the "Issue" stated just above it and the call we had last week). The decision of the group was to eliminate the second clause (beginning with "and nothing..."), leaving only the first clause "For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority." The proposed Recommendation gets this almost exactly backward, deleting the first clause and leaving the second. This needs to be fixed as set forth below. Currently the section reads as follows: 1. Draft Bylaws section 1.1 (c) 1.1. Text from the Bylaws: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority, and nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that it does have authority to impose such regulations.” 1.2. Issue: The last clause of the last sentence: "nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that it does have authority to impose such regulations" Appears to create some ambiguity. 1.3. Recommendation: Remove this clause and end the sentence with "authority." The text would now read: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in the preceding sentence should be construed to suggest that ICANN does have such authority.” Instead, the Recommendation should be changed to read as follows: 1.3. Recommendation: Remove this clause and end the sentence with "authority." The text would now read: “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority.” Greg On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Silver, Bradley < Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com> wrote:
Thanks Milton – I agree “based on previously agreed language” could be unclear. I’d prefer to have language which preserve grandfathering for terms which are not substantively different from an agreed term. Merely tweaking the phrasing of a term or condition without changing its substance, shouldn’t exclude a term from the grandfathering – I don’t think that’s what we intended.
*From:* Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu] *Sent:* Sunday, May 08, 2016 11:00 AM *To:* Silver, Bradley; Bernard Turcotte; Accountability Cross Community
*Subject:* RE: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability
Bradley
Your proposed modification is on the right track, but I have trouble with the vagueness of “based on previously agreed language.” I see endless debates about whether some new term is “based on” agreed language or not. So why not just say this:
“Previous discussions within the CCWG-Accountability while preparing the Bylaws Draft led to the conclusion that *grandfathering* of renewals were acceptable for these types of agreements, *but would not extend to any new term or condition.” *
Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology
*From:* Silver, Bradley [mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>] *Sent:* Friday, May 6, 2016 3:12 PM *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; Bernard Turcotte < turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability
The language may be read to imply that the addition of any new terms would take those agreements out of the grandfathering altogether, which is not what was intended – only the new terms. I suggest clarifying that as follows -
Previous discussions within the CCWG-Accountability while preparing the Bylaws Draft led to the conclusion that *grandfathering* of renewals were acceptable for these types of agreements, *but would not extend to any new term or condition which was not based on previously agreed language*.
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mueller, Milton L *Sent:* Friday, May 06, 2016 2:21 PM *To:* Mueller, Milton L; Bernard Turcotte; Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability
Also, related to this, shouldn’t the recommendation in 2.3 propose adding this language to the bylaws?
“…as long as these renewals did not include any new terms. Any new terms would need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.”
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mueller, Milton L *Sent:* Friday, May 6, 2016 2:16 PM *To:* Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability
Bernard
One quick comment.
I was pleased to see the renewals of the RA/RAA flagged in 2.2. I think the comment is attempting to do the right thing, but I find the language phrased in a way that seems to create an unintentional ambiguity.
Under 2.2 you say:
“…as long as these renewals did not include any new term based on previously agreed language. Any new terms would however need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.”
I do not understand the function or intent of the words “based on previously agreed language.” If the language is previously agreed, how can it be a new term? Did you mean to simply say:
“…as long as these renewals did not include any new terms. Any new terms would need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.”
--MM
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Bernard Turcotte *Sent:* Friday, May 6, 2016 11:36 AM *To:* Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability
All,
As discussed on the call this week please find attached the draft response of the CCWG-Accountability to the public consultation on the new Bylaws.
This document was developed from the meeting notes of our call on May 3rd and reviewed by the leadership team.
As discussed at that meeting we are providing the CCWG-Accountability a 72 hour comment period on this draft response
beginning 1800UTC Friday May 6th and closing 1800UTC Monday May 9th.
Please post your comments to the main CCWG-Accountability list, used to send this email, and please use the same SUBJECT to
facilitate tracking of comments (or simply REPLY to this email).
Thank you
Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
================================================================= *Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 <212.484.6000> or via email at ITServices@timewarner.com <ITServices@timewarner.com> *
=================================================================
================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. =================================================================
================================================================= *Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 <212.484.6000> or via email at ITServices@timewarner.com <ITServices@timewarner.com> *
=================================================================
================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. =================================================================
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Milton, Neither Bernard nor your edits are responding to the concerns You proposed Quote as long as these renewals did not include any new terms. Any new terms would need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN Unquote What does it mean pls Kavouss 2016-05-06 20:16 GMT+02:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>:
Bernard
One quick comment.
I was pleased to see the renewals of the RA/RAA flagged in 2.2. I think the comment is attempting to do the right thing, but I find the language phrased in a way that seems to create an unintentional ambiguity.
Under 2.2 you say:
“…as long as these renewals did not include any new term based on previously agreed language. Any new terms would however need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.”
I do not understand the function or intent of the words “based on previously agreed language.” If the language is previously agreed, how can it be a new term? Did you mean to simply say:
“…as long as these renewals did not include any new terms. Any new terms would need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.”
--MM
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Bernard Turcotte *Sent:* Friday, May 6, 2016 11:36 AM *To:* Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability
All,
As discussed on the call this week please find attached the draft response of the CCWG-Accountability to the public consultation on the new Bylaws.
This document was developed from the meeting notes of our call on May 3rd and reviewed by the leadership team.
As discussed at that meeting we are providing the CCWG-Accountability a 72 hour comment period on this draft response
beginning 1800UTC Friday May 6th and closing 1800UTC Monday May 9th.
Please post your comments to the main CCWG-Accountability list, used to send this email, and please use the same SUBJECT to
facilitate tracking of comments (or simply REPLY to this email).
Thank you
Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Well, how about: "… renewals would normally not include any new terms. Any new terms would need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN" We should bear in mind that for future reference, it will not be possible to define the scope and mission of ICANN in such a way that would always exclude any new terms. Indeed, much of the hype about new gTLDs and an eventual additional programme (¿in 2020?) seems to be based on opportunities for innovation which cannot yet be defined. Much as I doubt the long-term viability of many of the innovative gTLDs, it is quite possible that there will be cases in the future where the ICANN Board, the Community, or even the GAC will have views about what are or are not necessary 'new terms': CW On 07 May 2016, at 14:12, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Milton, Neither Bernard nor your edits are responding to the concerns You proposed Quote as long as these renewals did not include any new terms. Any new terms would need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN Unquote What does it mean pls Kavouss
2016-05-06 20:16 GMT+02:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>: Bernard
One quick comment.
I was pleased to see the renewals of the RA/RAA flagged in 2.2. I think the comment is attempting to do the right thing, but I find the language phrased in a way that seems to create an unintentional ambiguity.
Under 2.2 you say:
“…as long as these renewals did not include any new term based on previously agreed language. Any new terms would however need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.”
I do not understand the function or intent of the words “based on previously agreed language.” If the language is previously agreed, how can it be a new term? Did you mean to simply say:
“…as long as these renewals did not include any new terms. Any new terms would need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.”
--MM
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 11:36 AM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability
All,
As discussed on the call this week please find attached the draft response of the CCWG-Accountability to the public consultation on the new Bylaws.
This document was developed from the meeting notes of our call on May 3rd and reviewed by the leadership team.
As discussed at that meeting we are providing the CCWG-Accountability a 72 hour comment period on this draft response
beginning 1800UTC Friday May 6th and closing 1800UTC Monday May 9th.
Please post your comments to the main CCWG-Accountability list, used to send this email, and please use the same SUBJECT to
facilitate tracking of comments (or simply REPLY to this email).
Thank you
Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ 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
Bernard, I did not see reference to 1.2(b)(viii), i.e. the phrase “except as provided herein” at the end of the human rights section in the Core Values. I thought that there was general agreement that this created ambiguity on the preceding constraint (“This Core Value does not create and shall not be interpreted to create any additional obligation for ICANN and shall not obligate ICANN to respond to or consider any complaint, request or demand seeking the enforcement of human rights by ICANN”) and that the phrase should be deleted or reworked to remove the possibility that a future change to the bylaws could create such an obligation. I agree with Milton that the wording in 2.2 and 2.3 is unclear. Also on 2, correct me if I misremember, but I thought that we agreed that, with the exception of grandfathered RAs and RAAs, all of these agreements (B-D) should be subject to challenge under the RFR or IRP if they are outside the scope and mission. The proposed recommendation simply says that the CCWG did not request these exemptions and “It remains unclear whether they are required.” In addition, when did the CCWG decide that E (the Five-year Strategic Pan and the Five-year Operating Plan existing on 1 October 2016) should be grandfathered and exempt from RFR or IRP challenge? The comment would imply CCWG support for it by not mentioning E among the agreements in question. It is not clear to me exactly what is being recommended in 2. The intent of other recommendations is clear – strike language, review to ensure consistency, etc. – but 2.3 is just commentary. Finally, on 9.3, we are asking the Board to “consider addressing this issue if it deems it necessary”? We mention the GAC carve-out in EC rejection actions and Board removal, but not on approval actions. The bylaws (3.2(e)) and the CCWG proposal are clear that the GAC carve-out applies to approval actions. If it is mentioned in these other two instances in Annex D, it should also be mentioned for approval actions in Annex D. This is a matter of consistency. The CCWG should recommend adding the relevant text to Annex D Section 1.4(b). Thanks, Brett From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 11:36 AM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability All, As discussed on the call this week please find attached the draft response of the CCWG-Accountability to the public consultation on the new Bylaws. This document was developed from the meeting notes of our call on May 3rd and reviewed by the leadership team. As discussed at that meeting we are providing the CCWG-Accountability a 72 hour comment period on this draft response beginning 1800UTC Friday May 6th and closing 1800UTC Monday May 9th. Please post your comments to the main CCWG-Accountability list, used to send this email, and please use the same SUBJECT to facilitate tracking of comments (or simply REPLY to this email). Thank you Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs ________________________________ 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<http://heritage.org/>
Apologies, I said 3.2(e) when it should have been 3.6(e). ________________________________ 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<http://heritage.org/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Brett Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 3:19 PM To: Bernard Turcotte; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability Bernard, I did not see reference to 1.2(b)(viii), i.e. the phrase “except as provided herein” at the end of the human rights section in the Core Values. I thought that there was general agreement that this created ambiguity on the preceding constraint (“This Core Value does not create and shall not be interpreted to create any additional obligation for ICANN and shall not obligate ICANN to respond to or consider any complaint, request or demand seeking the enforcement of human rights by ICANN”) and that the phrase should be deleted or reworked to remove the possibility that a future change to the bylaws could create such an obligation. I agree with Milton that the wording in 2.2 and 2.3 is unclear. Also on 2, correct me if I misremember, but I thought that we agreed that, with the exception of grandfathered RAs and RAAs, all of these agreements (B-D) should be subject to challenge under the RFR or IRP if they are outside the scope and mission. The proposed recommendation simply says that the CCWG did not request these exemptions and “It remains unclear whether they are required.” In addition, when did the CCWG decide that E (the Five-year Strategic Pan and the Five-year Operating Plan existing on 1 October 2016) should be grandfathered and exempt from RFR or IRP challenge? The comment would imply CCWG support for it by not mentioning E among the agreements in question. It is not clear to me exactly what is being recommended in 2. The intent of other recommendations is clear – strike language, review to ensure consistency, etc. – but 2.3 is just commentary. Finally, on 9.3, we are asking the Board to “consider addressing this issue if it deems it necessary”? We mention the GAC carve-out in EC rejection actions and Board removal, but not on approval actions. The bylaws (3.2(e)) and the CCWG proposal are clear that the GAC carve-out applies to approval actions. If it is mentioned in these other two instances in Annex D, it should also be mentioned for approval actions in Annex D. This is a matter of consistency. The CCWG should recommend adding the relevant text to Annex D Section 1.4(b). Thanks, Brett From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 11:36 AM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability All, As discussed on the call this week please find attached the draft response of the CCWG-Accountability to the public consultation on the new Bylaws. This document was developed from the meeting notes of our call on May 3rd and reviewed by the leadership team. As discussed at that meeting we are providing the CCWG-Accountability a 72 hour comment period on this draft response beginning 1800UTC Friday May 6th and closing 1800UTC Monday May 9th. Please post your comments to the main CCWG-Accountability list, used to send this email, and please use the same SUBJECT to facilitate tracking of comments (or simply REPLY to this email). Thank you Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs ________________________________ 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<http://heritage.org/>
Hello, Just a few minor comments: - While removing "by consensus" from 6.2 is fine, I think replacing it with something like "by their decision making process" will better carry out the intent of Annex 1 line 37-38 - It may be good to do our homework to have clarity on issue 2 so the phrase "...It remains unclear whether they are required..." can be struck out in 2.3 - I think the following text should be removed from 8.3 "...ensure that there is no need that the FOI-HR be approved by all Chartering Organizations but rather..". The point is that approval based on the CCWG charter is required, that way any possible update on the charter will still be applicable, hence there is no need to lock in to a particular process. Locking in to the charter is better. - I don't understand the intent of recommendation 9.3, since/if we could not relate this with our report in 9.2. Then I suggest we strike out item 9 and not put the board in an unnecessary confusion. - I am not a lawyer, but I doubt removing the word " including" really address the issue raised in 7.2. I think replacing "including" with "however" may be better (again could be me just applying English and not legal English) Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 6 May 2016 4:36 p.m., "Bernard Turcotte" <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
As discussed on the call this week please find attached the draft response of the CCWG-Accountability to the public consultation on the new Bylaws.
This document was developed from the meeting notes of our call on May 3rd and reviewed by the leadership team.
As discussed at that meeting we are providing the CCWG-Accountability a 72 hour comment period on this draft response beginning 1800UTC Friday May 6th and closing 1800UTC Monday May 9th.
Please post your comments to the main CCWG-Accountability list, used to send this email, and please use the same SUBJECT to facilitate tracking of comments (or simply REPLY to this email).
Thank you
Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (8)
-
Bernard Turcotte -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Greg Shatan -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Mueller, Milton L -
Schaefer, Brett -
Seun Ojedeji -
Silver, Bradley