Sidley's Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal for review
Dear All, Last Friday the 12th February we sent you an update on process and timing regarding our work on the CWG Stewardship Dependency on CCWG Accountability. Sidley has, as the CWG agreed, updated our response to CCWG to reflect the changes that have since been made in the Supplementary Proposal. Below is the email from Sidley which also addresses areas that the CWG should be aware of. We now need you to review this response and give any feedback immediately and no later than 23h59 UTC on Tuesday 23 February. We will then ensure that the final response is communicated to the CCWG, the Chartering Organisations and, of course, the ICG on or around 24 February. Any concerns, questions or issues arising, please let us know ASAP. Jonathan & Lise CWG Stewardship Co-Chairs From: cwg-client-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Flanagan, Sharon Sent: 19 February 2016 22:57 To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal Dear All, Attached please find a draft of the CWG letter to the CCWG regarding the CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal. As noted in our prior email, with respect to the CWG dependency for an empowered community there was a request in the prior CWG comment letter for CCWG to consider whether the timelines in the prior CCWG proposal for SO/AC action were sufficiently long. The revised CCWG proposal has extended some of these timelines. As noted in our prior email, while this is not strictly an issue of conformity with the CWG proposal as the CWG proposal does not address this type of detail, we wanted to confirm that CWG was satisfied with the response to its prior comment letter. Please also note that the community power to recall the entire ICANN Board is modified when the Board is to be recalled for implementing GAC advice. Specifically, if the Empowered Community initiates an IRP challenging the Board’s implementation of GAC advice as being inconsistent with the ICANN Bylaws but does not prevail in the IRP, the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. The Empowered Community may, however, exercise the power to recall the entire Board based on other grounds. We don’t believe this directly impacts the CWG dependency, but we did want to note it. Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss. Kind regards, Holly and Sharon SHARON R. FLANAGAN Partner SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com> [Image removed by sender. SIDLEY] **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************
Overall, this looks pretty good to me but I have a few comments for consideration about the letter: · 1.b says: “The ability to exercise oversight with respect to key ICANN Board decisions (including with respect to the ICANN Board’s oversight of the IANA Functions) by reviewing and approving: (i) ICANN Board decisions with respect to recommendations resulting from an IANA Function Review (“IFR”) or Special IFR and (ii) the ICANN Budget;” Because the CWG Stewardship’s focus is specifically on the IANA budget, would it make sense to change (ii) to something like this: “the ICANN Budget including a separate budge for IANA services”? It seems to me that this would be consistent with item 2. · I like the fact that the letter states the CWG requirements for each area and that a clear conclusion is provided but I think it would also be very helpful if in each of the eight cases, between the CWG requirement paragraph and the conclusion, the CCWG Accountability recommendations that fulfill the requirements were briefly listed. If this seems like a good idea, here is a formatting idea: Provide a heading for each of the three paragraphs of each of the eight items just like is already done for the conclusions: 1) CWG Stewardship Requirements; 2) Applicable CCWG Accountability Recommendations; 3) Conclusion. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 4:03 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley's Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal for review Dear All, Last Friday the 12th February we sent you an update on process and timing regarding our work on the CWG Stewardship Dependency on CCWG Accountability. Sidley has, as the CWG agreed, updated our response to CCWG to reflect the changes that have since been made in the Supplementary Proposal. Below is the email from Sidley which also addresses areas that the CWG should be aware of. We now need you to review this response and give any feedback immediately and no later than 23h59 UTC on Tuesday 23 February. We will then ensure that the final response is communicated to the CCWG, the Chartering Organisations and, of course, the ICG on or around 24 February. Any concerns, questions or issues arising, please let us know ASAP. Jonathan & Lise CWG Stewardship Co-Chairs From: cwg-client-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Flanagan, Sharon Sent: 19 February 2016 22:57 To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal Dear All, Attached please find a draft of the CWG letter to the CCWG regarding the CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal. As noted in our prior email, with respect to the CWG dependency for an empowered community there was a request in the prior CWG comment letter for CCWG to consider whether the timelines in the prior CCWG proposal for SO/AC action were sufficiently long. The revised CCWG proposal has extended some of these timelines. As noted in our prior email, while this is not strictly an issue of conformity with the CWG proposal as the CWG proposal does not address this type of detail, we wanted to confirm that CWG was satisfied with the response to its prior comment letter. Please also note that the community power to recall the entire ICANN Board is modified when the Board is to be recalled for implementing GAC advice. Specifically, if the Empowered Community initiates an IRP challenging the Board’s implementation of GAC advice as being inconsistent with the ICANN Bylaws but does not prevail in the IRP, the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. The Empowered Community may, however, exercise the power to recall the entire Board based on other grounds. We don’t believe this directly impacts the CWG dependency, but we did want to note it. Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss. Kind regards, Holly and Sharon SHARON R. FLANAGAN Partner SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com> [Image removed by sender. SIDLEY] **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************
I agree with Chuck's valuable comments 1 and 2. May I add .... from the letter, item 7. Appeals Mechanism... NOTE: Obviously ICANN will not intentionally do anything to undermine stability, reliability or security of a Registry's operation.... there has not been any evidence in the past that I am aware of.... However..... to make sure that post transition there is stability of service ..... Today, the NTIA "approves" the change request (or sends it back) and has given a perception of indemnification to ICANN for its actions (or failure to act). If ICANN were to propose a course of (non-)action that impacted the stability, reliability or security of a TLD Registry and its customers the Appeal's mechanism needs to kick in VERY quickly .... ie before ICANN pursued the specific damaging course of action.... So in order for ICANN to be accountable to the community it serves any (potentially) aggrieved Registry should be able to file for an Independent Review Process in the interest of stability of operation and thereby stop ICANN from undertaking the potentially damaging action ..... pending the review. I have not articulated this well (I apologise) I hope the substantive issue is understood. Best Paul Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Overall, this looks pretty good to me but I have a few comments for consideration about the letter:
· 1.b says: âThe ability to exercise oversight with respect to key ICANN Board decisions (including with respect to the ICANN Boardâs oversight of the IANA Functions) by reviewing and approving: (i) ICANN Board decisions with respect to recommendations resulting from an IANA Function Review (âIFRâ) or Special IFR and (ii) the ICANN Budget;â Because the CWG Stewardshipâs focus is specifically on the IANA budget, would it make sense to change (ii) to something like this: âthe ICANN Budget including a separate budge for IANA servicesâ? It seems to me that this would be consistent with item 2.
· I like the fact that the letter states the CWG requirements for each area and that a clear conclusion is provided but I think it would also be very helpful if in each of the eight cases, between the CWG requirement paragraph and the conclusion, the CCWG Accountability recommendations that fulfill the requirements were briefly listed. If this seems like a good idea, here is a formatting idea: Provide a heading for each of the three paragraphs of each of the eight items just like is already done for the conclusions: 1) CWG Stewardship Requirements; 2) Applicable CCWG Accountability Recommendations; 3) Conclusion.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 4:03 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley's Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal for review
Dear All,
Last Friday the 12th February we sent you an update on process and timing regarding our work on the CWG Stewardship Dependency on CCWG Accountability.
Sidley has, as the CWG agreed, updated our response to CCWG to reflect the changes that have since been made in the Supplementary Proposal. Below is the email from Sidley which also addresses areas that the CWG should be aware of.
We now need you to review this response and give any feedback immediately and no later than 23h59 UTC on Tuesday 23 February.
We will then ensure that the final response is communicated to the CCWG, the Chartering Organisations and, of course, the ICG on or around 24 February.
Any concerns, questions or issues arising, please let us know ASAP.
Jonathan & Lise CWG Stewardship Co-Chairs
From: cwg-client-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Flanagan, Sharon Sent: 19 February 2016 22:57 To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal
Dear All,
Attached please find a draft of the CWG letter to the CCWG regarding the CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal.
As noted in our prior email, with respect to the CWG dependency for an empowered community there was a request in the prior CWG comment letter for CCWG to consider whether the timelines in the prior CCWG proposal for SO/AC action were sufficiently long. The revised CCWG proposal has extended some of these timelines. As noted in our prior email, while this is not strictly an issue of conformity with the CWG proposal as the CWG proposal does not address this type of detail, we wanted to confirm that CWG was satisfied with the response to its prior comment letter.
Please also note that the community power to recall the entire ICANN Board is modified when the Board is to be recalled for implementing GAC advice. Specifically, if the Empowered Community initiates an IRP challenging the Boardâs implementation of GAC advice as being inconsistent with the ICANN Bylaws but does not prevail in the IRP, the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. The Empowered Community may, however, exercise the power to recall the entire Board based on other grounds. We donât believe this directly impacts the CWG dependency, but we did want to note it.
Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss.
Kind regards, Holly and Sharon
SHARON R. FLANAGAN Partner
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com> [Image removed by sender. SIDLEY]
****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
My understanding is that the CCWG recommendations already allows for an individual registry to file an IRP. Am I correct on that? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 12:53 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley's Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal for review I agree with Chuck's valuable comments 1 and 2. May I add .... from the letter, item 7. Appeals Mechanism... NOTE: Obviously ICANN will not intentionally do anything to undermine stability, reliability or security of a Registry's operation.... there has not been any evidence in the past that I am aware of.... However..... to make sure that post transition there is stability of service ..... Today, the NTIA "approves" the change request (or sends it back) and has given a perception of indemnification to ICANN for its actions (or failure to act). If ICANN were to propose a course of (non-)action that impacted the stability, reliability or security of a TLD Registry and its customers the Appeal's mechanism needs to kick in VERY quickly .... ie before ICANN pursued the specific damaging course of action.... So in order for ICANN to be accountable to the community it serves any (potentially) aggrieved Registry should be able to file for an Independent Review Process in the interest of stability of operation and thereby stop ICANN from undertaking the potentially damaging action ..... pending the review. I have not articulated this well (I apologise) I hope the substantive issue is understood. Best Paul Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Overall, this looks pretty good to me but I have a few comments for consideration about the letter:
· 1.b says: “The ability to exercise oversight with respect to key ICANN Board decisions (including with respect to the ICANN Board’s oversight of the IANA Functions) by reviewing and approving: (i) ICANN Board decisions with respect to recommendations resulting from an IANA Function Review (“IFRâ€) or Special IFR and (ii) the ICANN Budget;†Because the CWG Stewardship’s focus is specifically on the IANA budget, would it make sense to change (ii) to something like this: “the ICANN Budget including a separate budge for IANA servicesâ€? It seems to me that this would be consistent with item 2.
· I like the fact that the letter states the CWG requirements for each area and that a clear conclusion is provided but I think it would also be very helpful if in each of the eight cases, between the CWG requirement paragraph and the conclusion, the CCWG Accountability recommendations that fulfill the requirements were briefly listed. If this seems like a good idea, here is a formatting idea: Provide a heading for each of the three paragraphs of each of the eight items just like is already done for the conclusions: 1) CWG Stewardship Requirements; 2) Applicable CCWG Accountability Recommendations; 3) Conclusion.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 4:03 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley's Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal for review
Dear All,
Last Friday the 12th February we sent you an update on process and timing regarding our work on the CWG Stewardship Dependency on CCWG Accountability.
Sidley has, as the CWG agreed, updated our response to CCWG to reflect the changes that have since been made in the Supplementary Proposal. Below is the email from Sidley which also addresses areas that the CWG should be aware of.
We now need you to review this response and give any feedback immediately and no later than 23h59 UTC on Tuesday 23 February.
We will then ensure that the final response is communicated to the CCWG, the Chartering Organisations and, of course, the ICG on or around 24 February.
Any concerns, questions or issues arising, please let us know ASAP.
Jonathan & Lise CWG Stewardship Co-Chairs
From: cwg-client-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Flanagan, Sharon Sent: 19 February 2016 22:57 To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal
Dear All,
Attached please find a draft of the CWG letter to the CCWG regarding the CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal.
As noted in our prior email, with respect to the CWG dependency for an empowered community there was a request in the prior CWG comment letter for CCWG to consider whether the timelines in the prior CCWG proposal for SO/AC action were sufficiently long. The revised CCWG proposal has extended some of these timelines. As noted in our prior email, while this is not strictly an issue of conformity with the CWG proposal as the CWG proposal does not address this type of detail, we wanted to confirm that CWG was satisfied with the response to its prior comment letter.
Please also note that the community power to recall the entire ICANN Board is modified when the Board is to be recalled for implementing GAC advice. Specifically, if the Empowered Community initiates an IRP challenging the Board’s implementation of GAC advice as being inconsistent with the ICANN Bylaws but does not prevail in the IRP, the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. The Empowered Community may, however, exercise the power to recall the entire Board based on other grounds. We don’t believe this directly impacts the CWG dependency, but we did want to note it.
Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss.
Kind regards, Holly and Sharon
SHARON R. FLANAGAN Partner
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com> [Image removed by sender. SIDLEY]
****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
Yes, anyone (individual or entity) can file an IRP. On 2/22/16, 4:20 PM, "cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Gomes, Chuck" <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
My understanding is that the CCWG recommendations already allows for an individual registry to file an IRP. Am I correct on that?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 12:53 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley's Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal for review
I agree with Chuck's valuable comments 1 and 2.
May I add .... from the letter, item 7. Appeals Mechanism...
NOTE: Obviously ICANN will not intentionally do anything to undermine stability, reliability or security of a Registry's operation.... there has not been any evidence in the past that I am aware of....
However..... to make sure that post transition there is stability of service ..... Today, the NTIA "approves" the change request (or sends it back) and has given a perception of indemnification to ICANN for its actions (or failure to act).
If ICANN were to propose a course of (non-)action that impacted the stability, reliability or security of a TLD Registry and its customers the Appeal's mechanism needs to kick in VERY quickly .... ie before ICANN pursued the specific damaging course of action....
So in order for ICANN to be accountable to the community it serves any (potentially) aggrieved Registry should be able to file for an Independent Review Process in the interest of stability of operation and thereby stop ICANN from undertaking the potentially damaging action ..... pending the review.
I have not articulated this well (I apologise) I hope the substantive issue is understood.
Best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Overall, this looks pretty good to me but I have a few comments for consideration about the letter:
· 1.b says: “The ability to exercise oversight with respect to key ICANN Board decisions (including with respect to the ICANN Board’s oversight of the IANA Functions) by reviewing and approving: (i) ICANN Board decisions with respect to recommendations resulting from an IANA Function Review (“IFRâ€) or Special IFR and (ii) the ICANN Budget;†Because the CWG Stewardship’s focus is specifically on the IANA budget, would it make sense to change (ii) to something like this: “the ICANN Budget including a separate budge for IANA servicesâ€? It seems to me that this would be consistent with item 2.
· I like the fact that the letter states the CWG requirements for each area and that a clear conclusion is provided but I think it would also be very helpful if in each of the eight cases, between the CWG requirement paragraph and the conclusion, the CCWG Accountability recommendations that fulfill the requirements were briefly listed. If this seems like a good idea, here is a formatting idea: Provide a heading for each of the three paragraphs of each of the eight items just like is already done for the conclusions: 1) CWG Stewardship Requirements; 2) Applicable CCWG Accountability Recommendations; 3) Conclusion.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 4:03 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley's Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal for review
Dear All,
Last Friday the 12th February we sent you an update on process and timing regarding our work on the CWG Stewardship Dependency on CCWG Accountability.
Sidley has, as the CWG agreed, updated our response to CCWG to reflect the changes that have since been made in the Supplementary Proposal. Below is the email from Sidley which also addresses areas that the CWG should be aware of.
We now need you to review this response and give any feedback immediately and no later than 23h59 UTC on Tuesday 23 February.
We will then ensure that the final response is communicated to the CCWG, the Chartering Organisations and, of course, the ICG on or around 24 February.
Any concerns, questions or issues arising, please let us know ASAP.
Jonathan & Lise CWG Stewardship Co-Chairs
From: cwg-client-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Flanagan, Sharon Sent: 19 February 2016 22:57 To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal
Dear All,
Attached please find a draft of the CWG letter to the CCWG regarding the CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal.
As noted in our prior email, with respect to the CWG dependency for an empowered community there was a request in the prior CWG comment letter for CCWG to consider whether the timelines in the prior CCWG proposal for SO/AC action were sufficiently long. The revised CCWG proposal has extended some of these timelines. As noted in our prior email, while this is not strictly an issue of conformity with the CWG proposal as the CWG proposal does not address this type of detail, we wanted to confirm that CWG was satisfied with the response to its prior comment letter.
Please also note that the community power to recall the entire ICANN Board is modified when the Board is to be recalled for implementing GAC advice. Specifically, if the Empowered Community initiates an IRP challenging the Board’s implementation of GAC advice as being inconsistent with the ICANN Bylaws but does not prevail in the IRP, the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. The Empowered Community may, however, exercise the power to recall the entire Board based on other grounds. We don’t believe this directly impacts the CWG dependency, but we did want to note it.
Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss.
Kind regards, Holly and Sharon
SHARON R. FLANAGAN Partner
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com> [Image removed by sender. SIDLEY]
************************************************************************** **************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
************************************************************************** **************************
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Absolutely Chuck - any individual or entity materially affected by a Board action/or inaction, etc. Individual registries (direct consumers of IANA functions) would have two routes to get at service level problems through an IRP 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 2/22/16, 4:20 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
My understanding is that the CCWG recommendations already allows for an individual registry to file an IRP. Am I correct on that?
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 12:53 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley's Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal for review
I agree with Chuck's valuable comments 1 and 2.
May I add .... from the letter, item 7. Appeals Mechanism...
NOTE: Obviously ICANN will not intentionally do anything to undermine stability, reliability or security of a Registry's operation.... there has not been any evidence in the past that I am aware of....
However..... to make sure that post transition there is stability of service .....
Today, the NTIA "approves" the change request (or sends it back) and has given a perception of indemnification to ICANN for its actions (or failure to act).
If ICANN were to propose a course of (non-)action that impacted the stability, reliability or security of a TLD Registry and its customers the Appeal's mechanism needs to kick in VERY quickly .... ie before ICANN pursued the specific damaging course of action....
So in order for ICANN to be accountable to the community it serves any
(potentially) aggrieved Registry should be able to file for an Independent Review Process in the interest of stability of operation and thereby stop ICANN from undertaking the potentially damaging action ..... pending the review.
I have not articulated this well (I apologise) I hope the substantive issue is understood.
Best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Overall, this looks pretty good to me but I have a few comments for
consideration about the letter:
· 1.b says: “The ability to exercise oversight with respect to key
ICANN Board decisions (including with respect to the ICANN Board’s
oversight of the IANA Functions) by reviewing and approving: (i)
ICANN Board decisions with respect to recommendations resulting from
an IANA Function Review (“IFRâ€) or Special IFR and (ii) the ICANN
Budget;†Because the CWG Stewardship’s focus is specifically on
the IANA budget, would it make sense to change (ii) to something like
this: “the ICANN Budget including a separate budge for IANA
services� It seems to me that this would be consistent with item 2.
· I like the fact that the letter states the CWG requirements for
each area and that a clear conclusion is provided but I think it would
also be very helpful if in each of the eight cases, between the CWG
requirement paragraph and the conclusion, the CCWG Accountability
recommendations that fulfill the requirements were briefly listed. If
this seems like a good idea, here is a formatting idea: Provide a
heading for each of the three paragraphs of each of the eight items
just like is already done for the
conclusions: 1) CWG Stewardship Requirements; 2) Applicable CCWG
Accountability Recommendations; 3) Conclusion.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 4:03 AM
To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley's Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG
Final Proposal for review
Dear All,
Last Friday the 12th February we sent you an update on process and
timing regarding our work on the CWG Stewardship Dependency on CCWG Accountability.
Sidley has, as the CWG agreed, updated our response to CCWG to reflect
the changes that have since been made in the Supplementary Proposal.
Below is the email from Sidley which also addresses areas that the CWG
should be aware of.
We now need you to review this response and give any feedback
immediately and no later than 23h59 UTC on Tuesday 23 February.
We will then ensure that the final response is communicated to the
CCWG, the Chartering Organisations and, of course, the ICG on or around 24 February.
Any concerns, questions or issues arising, please let us know ASAP.
Jonathan & Lise
CWG Stewardship Co-Chairs
From:
cwg-client-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org>
[mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Flanagan, Sharon
Sent: 19 February 2016 22:57
To: Client Committee
Subject: [client com] Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal
Dear All,
Attached please find a draft of the CWG letter to the CCWG regarding
the CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal.
As noted in our prior email, with respect to the CWG dependency for an
empowered community there was a request in the prior CWG comment
letter for CCWG to consider whether the timelines in the prior CCWG
proposal for SO/AC action were sufficiently long. The revised CCWG
proposal has extended some of these timelines. As noted in our prior
email, while this is not strictly an issue of conformity with the CWG
proposal as the CWG proposal does not address this type of detail, we
wanted to confirm that CWG was satisfied with the response to its prior comment letter.
Please also note that the community power to recall the entire ICANN
Board is modified when the Board is to be recalled for implementing GAC advice.
Specifically, if the Empowered Community initiates an IRP challenging
the Board’s implementation of GAC advice as being inconsistent with
the ICANN Bylaws but does not prevail in the IRP, the Empowered
Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire Board solely
on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. The Empowered Community
may, however, exercise the power to recall the entire Board based on
other grounds. We don’t believe this directly impacts the CWG dependency, but we did want to note it.
Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss.
Kind regards,
Holly and Sharon
SHARON R. FLANAGAN
Partner
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
www.sidley.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.si dley.com&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrx dYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=satIenA91hHM7C6AbVnpcDTO5scsThPbUCgMvQmTObE&s=Le7xh_8hx vcReg5NhOLlg-Xa1qg9Y0H_enWz9jQ93ro&e= >
[Image removed by sender. SIDLEY]
************************************************************************** **************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is
privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and
any attachments and notify us immediately.
************************************************************************** **************************
_______________________________________________ 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=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6 X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=satIenA91hHM7C6AbVnpcDTO5scsThPbUCgMvQm TObE&s=BPrf7JOoVYh4x_B6XOF-DW3upZAVhieDktkHGv12F_g&e=
On 22 Feb 2016 10:34 p.m., "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
Absolutely Chuck - any individual or entity materially affected by a Board action/or inaction, etc. Individual registries (direct consumers of IANA functions) would have two routes to get at service level problems through an IRP
SO: Becky could you kindly clarify the 2 routes you referred to considering that IRP is a route? Regards
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 2/22/16, 4:20 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
My understanding is that the CCWG recommendations already allows for an individual registry to file an IRP. Am I correct on that?
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 12:53 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley's Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal for review
I agree with Chuck's valuable comments 1 and 2.
May I add .... from the letter, item 7. Appeals Mechanism...
NOTE: Obviously ICANN will not intentionally do anything to undermine stability, reliability or security of a Registry's operation.... there has not been any evidence in the past that I am aware of....
However..... to make sure that post transition there is stability of service .....
Today, the NTIA "approves" the change request (or sends it back) and has given a perception of indemnification to ICANN for its actions (or failure to act).
If ICANN were to propose a course of (non-)action that impacted the stability, reliability or security of a TLD Registry and its customers the Appeal's mechanism needs to kick in VERY quickly .... ie before ICANN pursued the specific damaging course of action....
So in order for ICANN to be accountable to the community it serves any
(potentially) aggrieved Registry should be able to file for an Independent Review Process in the interest of stability of operation and thereby stop ICANN from undertaking the potentially damaging action ..... pending the review.
I have not articulated this well (I apologise) I hope the substantive issue is understood.
Best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Overall, this looks pretty good to me but I have a few comments for
consideration about the letter:
· 1.b says: “The ability to exercise oversight with respect to key
ICANN Board decisions (including with respect to the ICANN Board’s
oversight of the IANA Functions) by reviewing and approving: (i)
ICANN Board decisions with respect to recommendations resulting from
an IANA Function Review (“IFR†) or Special IFR and (ii) the ICANN
Budget;†Because the CWG Stewardship’s focus is specifically on
the IANA budget, would it make sense to change (ii) to something like
this: “the ICANN Budget including a separate budge for IANA
services†? It seems to me that this would be consistent with item 2.
· I like the fact that the letter states the CWG requirements for
each area and that a clear conclusion is provided but I think it would
also be very helpful if in each of the eight cases, between the CWG
requirement paragraph and the conclusion, the CCWG Accountability
recommendations that fulfill the requirements were briefly listed. If
this seems like a good idea, here is a formatting idea: Provide a
heading for each of the three paragraphs of each of the eight items
just like is already done for the
conclusions: 1) CWG Stewardship Requirements; 2) Applicable CCWG
Accountability Recommendations; 3) Conclusion.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 4:03 AM
To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley's Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG
Final Proposal for review
Dear All,
Last Friday the 12th February we sent you an update on process and
timing regarding our work on the CWG Stewardship Dependency on CCWG Accountability.
Sidley has, as the CWG agreed, updated our response to CCWG to reflect
the changes that have since been made in the Supplementary Proposal.
Below is the email from Sidley which also addresses areas that the CWG
should be aware of.
We now need you to review this response and give any feedback
immediately and no later than 23h59 UTC on Tuesday 23 February.
We will then ensure that the final response is communicated to the
CCWG, the Chartering Organisations and, of course, the ICG on or around 24 February.
Any concerns, questions or issues arising, please let us know ASAP.
Jonathan & Lise
CWG Stewardship Co-Chairs
From:
cwg-client-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org>
[mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Flanagan, Sharon
Sent: 19 February 2016 22:57
To: Client Committee
Subject: [client com] Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal
Dear All,
Attached please find a draft of the CWG letter to the CCWG regarding
the CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal.
As noted in our prior email, with respect to the CWG dependency for an
empowered community there was a request in the prior CWG comment
letter for CCWG to consider whether the timelines in the prior CCWG
proposal for SO/AC action were sufficiently long. The revised CCWG
proposal has extended some of these timelines. As noted in our prior
email, while this is not strictly an issue of conformity with the CWG
proposal as the CWG proposal does not address this type of detail, we
wanted to confirm that CWG was satisfied with the response to its prior comment letter.
Please also note that the community power to recall the entire ICANN
Board is modified when the Board is to be recalled for implementing GAC advice.
Specifically, if the Empowered Community initiates an IRP challenging
the Board’s implementation of GAC advice as being inconsistent with
the ICANN Bylaws but does not prevail in the IRP, the Empowered
Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire Board solely
on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. The Empowered Community
may, however, exercise the power to recall the entire Board based on
other grounds. We don’t believe this directly impacts the CWG dependency, but we did want to note it.
Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss.
Kind regards,
Holly and Sharon
SHARON R. FLANAGAN
Partner
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
www.sidley.com<
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.si
dley.com &d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrx
dYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=satIenA91hHM7C6AbVnpcDTO5scsThPbUCgMvQmTObE&s=Le7xh_8hx
vcReg5NhOLlg-Xa1qg9Y0H_enWz9jQ93ro&e= >
[Image removed by sender. SIDLEY]
**************************************************************************
**************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is
privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and
any attachments and notify us immediately.
**************************************************************************
**************************
_______________________________________________ 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=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6
X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=satIenA91hHM7C6AbVnpcDTO5scsThPbUCgMvQm
TObE&s=BPrf7JOoVYh4x_B6XOF-DW3upZAVhieDktkHGv12F_g&e=
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Correct - that is my understanding too... and I think the CCWG has captured the sense of what the CWG was asking for but has omitted the element that where a review is triggered the process stalls any action by PTI pending the outcome of the IRP.... I knew I didn't explain the scenario well.... sorry.... Best Paul Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
My understanding is that the CCWG recommendations already allows for an individual registry to file an IRP. Am I correct on that?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 12:53 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley's Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal for review
I agree with Chuck's valuable comments 1 and 2.
May I add .... from the letter, item 7. Appeals Mechanism...
NOTE: Obviously ICANN will not intentionally do anything to undermine stability, reliability or security of a Registry's operation.... there has not been any evidence in the past that I am aware of....
However..... to make sure that post transition there is stability of service ..... Today, the NTIA "approves" the change request (or sends it back) and has given a perception of indemnification to ICANN for its actions (or failure to act).
If ICANN were to propose a course of (non-)action that impacted the stability, reliability or security of a TLD Registry and its customers the Appeal's mechanism needs to kick in VERY quickly .... ie before ICANN pursued the specific damaging course of action....
So in order for ICANN to be accountable to the community it serves any (potentially) aggrieved Registry should be able to file for an Independent Review Process in the interest of stability of operation and thereby stop ICANN from undertaking the potentially damaging action ..... pending the review.
I have not articulated this well (I apologise) I hope the substantive issue is understood.
Best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Overall, this looks pretty good to me but I have a few comments for consideration about the letter:
÷ 1.b says: ââ¬ÅThe ability to exercise oversight with respect to key ICANN Board decisions (including with respect to the ICANN Boardââ¬â¢s oversight of the IANA Functions) by reviewing and approving: (i) ICANN Board decisions with respect to recommendations resulting from an IANA Function Review (ââ¬ÅIFRââ¬Â) or Special IFR and (ii) the ICANN Budget;ââ¬Â Because the CWG Stewardshipââ¬â¢s focus is specifically on the IANA budget, would it make sense to change (ii) to something like this: ââ¬Åthe ICANN Budget including a separate budge for IANA servicesââ¬Â? It seems to me that this would be consistent with item
÷ I like the fact that the letter states the CWG requirements
for
each area and that a clear conclusion is provided but I think it would also be very helpful if in each of the eight cases, between the CWG requirement paragraph and the conclusion, the CCWG Accountability recommendations that fulfill the requirements were briefly listed. If this seems like a good idea, here is a formatting idea: Provide a heading for each of the three paragraphs of each of the eight items just like is already done for the conclusions: 1) CWG Stewardship Requirements; 2) Applicable CCWG Accountability Recommendations; 3) Conclusion.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 4:03 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley's Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal for review
Dear All,
Last Friday the 12th February we sent you an update on process and timing regarding our work on the CWG Stewardship Dependency on CCWG Accountability.
Sidley has, as the CWG agreed, updated our response to CCWG to reflect the changes that have since been made in the Supplementary Proposal. Below is the email from Sidley which also addresses areas that the CWG should be aware of.
We now need you to review this response and give any feedback immediately and no later than 23h59 UTC on Tuesday 23 February.
We will then ensure that the final response is communicated to the CCWG, the Chartering Organisations and, of course, the ICG on or around 24 February.
Any concerns, questions or issues arising, please let us know ASAP.
Jonathan & Lise CWG Stewardship Co-Chairs
From: cwg-client-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Flanagan, Sharon Sent: 19 February 2016 22:57 To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal
Dear All,
Attached please find a draft of the CWG letter to the CCWG regarding the CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal.
As noted in our prior email, with respect to the CWG dependency for an empowered community there was a request in the prior CWG comment letter for CCWG to consider whether the timelines in the prior CCWG proposal for SO/AC action were sufficiently long. The revised CCWG proposal has extended some of these timelines. As noted in our prior email, while this is not strictly an issue of conformity with the CWG proposal as the CWG proposal does not address this type of detail, we wanted to confirm that CWG was satisfied with the response to its prior comment letter.
Please also note that the community power to recall the entire ICANN Board is modified when the Board is to be recalled for implementing GAC advice. Specifically, if the Empowered Community initiates an IRP challenging the Boardââ¬â¢s implementation of GAC advice as being inconsistent with
the ICANN Bylaws but does not prevail in the IRP, the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. The Empowered Community may, however, exercise the power to recall the entire Board based on other grounds. We donââ¬â¢t believe this directly impacts the CWG dependency, but we did want to note it.
Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss.
Kind regards, Holly and Sharon
SHARON R. FLANAGAN Partner
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com> [Image removed by sender. SIDLEY]
****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
we’ll get that in the implementing round for the IRP 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 2/22/16, 4:38 PM, "Paul M Kane - CWG" <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:
Correct - that is my understanding too... and I think the CCWG has captured the sense of what the CWG was asking for but has omitted the element that where a review is triggered the process stalls any action by PTI pending the outcome of the IRP....
I knew I didn't explain the scenario well.... sorry....
Best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
My understanding is that the CCWG recommendations already allows for an individual registry to file an IRP. Am I correct on that?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 12:53 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley's Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal for review
I agree with Chuck's valuable comments 1 and 2.
May I add .... from the letter, item 7. Appeals Mechanism...
NOTE: Obviously ICANN will not intentionally do anything to undermine stability, reliability or security of a Registry's operation.... there has not been any evidence in the past that I am aware of....
However..... to make sure that post transition there is stability of service ..... Today, the NTIA "approves" the change request (or sends it back) and has given a perception of indemnification to ICANN for its actions (or failure to act).
If ICANN were to propose a course of (non-)action that impacted the stability, reliability or security of a TLD Registry and its customers the Appeal's mechanism needs to kick in VERY quickly .... ie before ICANN pursued the specific damaging course of action....
So in order for ICANN to be accountable to the community it serves any (potentially) aggrieved Registry should be able to file for an Independent Review Process in the interest of stability of operation and thereby stop ICANN from undertaking the potentially damaging action ..... pending the review.
I have not articulated this well (I apologise) I hope the substantive issue is understood.
Best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Overall, this looks pretty good to me but I have a few comments for consideration about the letter:
· 1.b says: “The ability to exercise oversight with respect to key ICANN Board decisions (including with respect to the ICANN Board’s oversight of the IANA Functions) by reviewing and approving: (i) ICANN Board decisions with respect to recommendations resulting from an IANA Function Review (“IFRâ€Â) or Special IFR and (ii) the ICANN Budget;†Because the CWG Stewardship’s focus is specifically on the IANA budget, would it make sense to change (ii) to something like this: “the ICANN Budget including a separate budge for IANA servicesâ€Â? It seems to me that this would be consistent with item
· I like the fact that the letter states the CWG
requirements for
each area and that a clear conclusion is provided but I think it would also be very helpful if in each of the eight cases, between the CWG requirement paragraph and the conclusion, the CCWG Accountability recommendations that fulfill the requirements were briefly listed. If this seems like a good idea, here is a formatting idea: Provide a heading for each of the three paragraphs of each of the eight items just like is already done for the conclusions: 1) CWG Stewardship Requirements; 2) Applicable CCWG Accountability Recommendations; 3) Conclusion.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 4:03 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley's Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal for review
Dear All,
Last Friday the 12th February we sent you an update on process and timing regarding our work on the CWG Stewardship Dependency on CCWG Accountability.
Sidley has, as the CWG agreed, updated our response to CCWG to reflect the changes that have since been made in the Supplementary Proposal. Below is the email from Sidley which also addresses areas that the CWG should be aware of.
We now need you to review this response and give any feedback immediately and no later than 23h59 UTC on Tuesday 23 February.
We will then ensure that the final response is communicated to the CCWG, the Chartering Organisations and, of course, the ICG on or around 24 February.
Any concerns, questions or issues arising, please let us know ASAP.
Jonathan & Lise CWG Stewardship Co-Chairs
From: cwg-client-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Flanagan, Sharon Sent: 19 February 2016 22:57 To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal
Dear All,
Attached please find a draft of the CWG letter to the CCWG regarding the CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal.
As noted in our prior email, with respect to the CWG dependency for an empowered community there was a request in the prior CWG comment letter for CCWG to consider whether the timelines in the prior CCWG proposal for SO/AC action were sufficiently long. The revised CCWG proposal has extended some of these timelines. As noted in our prior email, while this is not strictly an issue of conformity with the CWG proposal as the CWG proposal does not address this type of detail, we wanted to confirm that CWG was satisfied with the response to its prior comment letter.
Please also note that the community power to recall the entire ICANN Board is modified when the Board is to be recalled for implementing GAC advice. Specifically, if the Empowered Community initiates an IRP challenging the Board’s implementation of GAC advice as being inconsistent with
the ICANN Bylaws but does not prevail in the IRP, the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. The Empowered Community may, however, exercise the power to recall the entire Board based on other grounds. We don’t believe this directly impacts the CWG dependency, but we did want to note it.
Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss.
Kind regards, Holly and Sharon
SHARON R. FLANAGAN Partner
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
www.sidley.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.si dley.com&d=CwIFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrx dYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=_WCRPqr0ql7SlQpPpfslq01oNh8c0jfFDDqUea-Kzsc&s=dbEQGnJKD c7RF2QqUllH4G4LIX_cZRw5XIBWtW6TcFA&e= >
[Image removed by sender. SIDLEY]
************************************************************************** **************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
************************************************************************** **************************
_______________________________________________ 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=CwIFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6 X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=_WCRPqr0ql7SlQpPpfslq01oNh8c0jfFDDqUea- Kzsc&s=o8GZ7mSXoylCAm10MJmlP0t53Bwq0NZKjc_HAn-fjBs&e=
Hi, Yeah, I wouldn't think of that as a CCWG element anyway, it would be more of a CWG implementation issue. avri On 22-Feb-16 23:46, Burr, Becky wrote:
we’ll get that in the implementing round for the IRP
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 2/22/16, 4:38 PM, "Paul M Kane - CWG" <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:
Correct - that is my understanding too... and I think the CCWG has captured the sense of what the CWG was asking for but has omitted the element that where a review is triggered the process stalls any action by PTI pending the outcome of the IRP....
I knew I didn't explain the scenario well.... sorry....
Best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
My understanding is that the CCWG recommendations already allows for an individual registry to file an IRP. Am I correct on that?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 12:53 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley's Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal for review
I agree with Chuck's valuable comments 1 and 2.
May I add .... from the letter, item 7. Appeals Mechanism...
NOTE: Obviously ICANN will not intentionally do anything to undermine stability, reliability or security of a Registry's operation.... there has not been any evidence in the past that I am aware of....
However..... to make sure that post transition there is stability of service ..... Today, the NTIA "approves" the change request (or sends it back) and has given a perception of indemnification to ICANN for its actions (or failure to act).
If ICANN were to propose a course of (non-)action that impacted the stability, reliability or security of a TLD Registry and its customers the Appeal's mechanism needs to kick in VERY quickly .... ie before ICANN pursued the specific damaging course of action....
So in order for ICANN to be accountable to the community it serves any (potentially) aggrieved Registry should be able to file for an Independent Review Process in the interest of stability of operation and thereby stop ICANN from undertaking the potentially damaging action ..... pending the review.
I have not articulated this well (I apologise) I hope the substantive issue is understood.
Best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
· I like the fact that the letter states the CWG requirements for each area and that a clear conclusion is provided but I think it would also be very helpful if in each of the eight cases, between the CWG requirement paragraph and the conclusion, the CCWG Accountability recommendations that fulfill the requirements were briefly listed. If this seems like a good idea, here is a formatting idea: Provide a heading for each of the three paragraphs of each of the eight items just like is already done for the conclusions: 1) CWG Stewardship Requirements; 2) Applicable CCWG Accountability Recommendations; 3) Conclusion.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 4:03 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley's Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal for review
Dear All,
Last Friday the 12th February we sent you an update on process and timing regarding our work on the CWG Stewardship Dependency on CCWG Accountability. Sidley has, as the CWG agreed, updated our response to CCWG to reflect the changes that have since been made in the Supplementary Proposal. Below is the email from Sidley which also addresses areas that the CWG should be aware of.
We now need you to review this response and give any feedback immediately and no later than 23h59 UTC on Tuesday 23 February.
We will then ensure that the final response is communicated to the CCWG, the Chartering Organisations and, of course, the ICG on or around 24 February. Any concerns, questions or issues arising, please let us know ASAP.
Jonathan & Lise CWG Stewardship Co-Chairs
From: cwg-client-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Flanagan, Sharon Sent: 19 February 2016 22:57 To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] Draft CWG Comment Letter on CCWG Final Proposal
Dear All,
Attached please find a draft of the CWG letter to the CCWG regarding the CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal.
As noted in our prior email, with respect to the CWG dependency for an empowered community there was a request in the prior CWG comment letter for CCWG to consider whether the timelines in the prior CCWG proposal for SO/AC action were sufficiently long. The revised CCWG proposal has extended some of these timelines. As noted in our prior email, while this is not strictly an issue of conformity with the CWG proposal as the CWG proposal does not address this type of detail, we wanted to confirm that CWG was satisfied with the response to its prior comment letter. Please also note that the community power to recall the entire ICANN Board is modified when the Board is to be recalled for implementing GAC advice. Specifically, if the Empowered Community initiates an IRP challenging the Board’s implementation of GAC advice as being inconsistent with
Overall, this looks pretty good to me but I have a few comments for consideration about the letter:
· 1.b says: “The ability to exercise oversight with respect to key ICANN Board decisions (including with respect to the ICANN Board’s oversight of the IANA Functions) by reviewing and approving: (i) ICANN Board decisions with respect to recommendations resulting from an IANA Function Review (“IFRâ€Â) or Special IFR and (ii) the ICANN Budget;†Because the CWG Stewardship’s focus is specifically on the IANA budget, would it make sense to change (ii) to something like this: “the ICANN Budget including a separate budge for IANA servicesâ€Â? It seems to me that this would be consistent with item
the ICANN Bylaws but does not prevail in the IRP, the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. The Empowered Community may, however, exercise the power to recall the entire Board based on other grounds. We don’t believe this directly impacts the CWG dependency, but we did want to note it. Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss.
Kind regards, Holly and Sharon
SHARON R. FLANAGAN Partner
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
www.sidley.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.si dley.com&d=CwIFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrx dYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=_WCRPqr0ql7SlQpPpfslq01oNh8c0jfFDDqUea-Kzsc&s=dbEQGnJKD c7RF2QqUllH4G4LIX_cZRw5XIBWtW6TcFA&e= >
[Image removed by sender. SIDLEY]
**************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
**************************
_______________________________________________ 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=CwIFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6 X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=_WCRPqr0ql7SlQpPpfslq01oNh8c0jfFDDqUea- Kzsc&s=o8GZ7mSXoylCAm10MJmlP0t53Bwq0NZKjc_HAn-fjBs&e=
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
participants (7)
-
Avri Doria -
Burr, Becky -
Gomes, Chuck -
Grace Abuhamad -
Lise Fuhr -
Paul M Kane - CWG -
Seun Ojedeji