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> 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

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

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
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 | 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.

This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com