It doesn’t seem to me that that should be hard to fix and the timing is perfect because we are currently working on the draft Bylaws changes. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 6:51 AM To: Greg Shatan; Burr, Becky Cc: avri@acm.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 This is an interesting question. Para 107 says: This final proposal attempts to meet all of the above requirements by: ... Establishing a contract between PTI and ICANN that will grant PTI the rights to act as the IFO, and set out the rights and obligations of PTI and ICANN Could/should the concerns raised by Becky and Greg be addressed in the "rights and obligations" part of the contract outlined above, and if so does the Draft Proposed Term Sheet in Annex S adequately account for the concerns raised in this thread? (My cursory read suggests that it does not.) Matthew On 26/01/2016 04:17, Greg Shatan wrote: Becky, That is my impression as well. Greg On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto: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<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, January 25, 2016 at 3:22 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>> Cc: "avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>" <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz> On 1/25/16, 10:30 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=6HapdIJul6_Kghgkb89eqFTW7ZOOi_qFE_TfT-h15z0&s=uD5dLPU_fKJNDV-O0vSqyTVMbq1ZOrZJqcWw5QTB_jQ&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org> | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/logo-avast-v1.png]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...>