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


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