Becky, That is my impression as well. Greg On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
My impression based on the various posts is that we need both a general provision regarding ICANN’s obligation to cause the PTI to fulfill its obligations (the failure to do so would give rise to a standard IRP) and we need something to address SLA failures, etc. with a operational (rather than constitutional) standard of review.
*J. Beckwith Burr* *Neustar, Inc.* / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 *Office:* +1.202.533.2932 *Mobile:* +1.202.352.6367 */* *neustar.biz* <http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Monday, January 25, 2016 at 3:22 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz> Cc: "avri@acm.org" <avri@acm.org>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" < cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG-ACCT Request for Guidance on PTI - IRP - Please respond by 23h59 UTC Monday 25 January 2016
Becky,
have we specified that there should be such a provision in the Bylaws?
I guess we have left to "implementation" the agreement between ICANN and PTI. I don't believe this has been picked up yet. Am I correct? If so, that should probably change soon.
Greg
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
Presumably if ICANN has an obligation in its Bylaws to ensure that PTI does the right thing, it will need to create the necessary enforcement mechanisms in its relationship with PTI.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 1/25/16, 10:30 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Another nagging question I have, and one I think people tell me I am wrong about becase of MOUs and contracts.
In the PTI environment, given that ICANN remains the representative for 2 of the operational communities, and they resolve their IANA issues with ICANN based on contracts and MOUs, how do we expect ICANN to get what it needs from IANA on their behalf?
Will, as today. they just tell IANA what to do and that will be the end of it.
The other OCs have indicated that any appeals mechanisms we create are irrelevant to their case - they have their own methods. But these methods involve ICANN and not PTI. Does ICANN need to appeal on their behalf? How does it do this?
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivir
us&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8
WDDkMr4k&m=sNRRTgQciMa9L6cxsRmapxpj1FEfitYPlAMn4NmB4Gk&s=VjHS6O9uycnwTVSFP XRCBB11R2TBkKIwjKy1wEj8MaU&e=
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6
X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=sNRRTgQciMa9L6cxsRmapxpj1FEfitYPlAMn4Nm B4Gk&s=0HwgSD_DtHwhuq9QOacLroSh0USPJ_sMNZMCTVHGh78&e=
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>