Anne and all, In the interests of time and communication, I've thrown together a quick scorecard based on the list Anne extracted and posted it to Google Drive. With more work, I can make the references to the current CCWG position more specific, but this is my quick and dirty view of the CCWG's progress against our "asks." The link comes with "suggest and comment" rights, so please do. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h89jwkxxsm6YHHl63soQOTuLfvWMqT_wX1M5FFps... I've also attached a Word copy for the Google Drive-challenged. Greg On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Anne,
That's quite a scorecard. I'll have to think about it. I may turn it into a chart for easy reading.
I'd be interested in views from you and Jonathan Zuck, as other IPC folk most active in the CCWG.
Greg
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> wrote:
Hi Greg,
My understanding of the Chartering Organization approval process is that in the CCWG-Accountability Charter, there is a provision contemplating a possible Supplemental Report if any recommendation is not wholeheartedly approved by a particular Chartering Organization and that the Chartering Organizations may be able to make additional recommendations in this regard. Is that your understanding?
I was curious as to what you think about how the items IPC requested in public comment in September will be incorporated in the Accountability Report. The list from the end of our public comment on the Second Draft Report appears below. (At least I think this is the version that was filed.) Do you have a sense as to how far we got with these public comments?
“In particular, in its Final Report, the CCWG should incorporate the IPC recommendations embodied in the above comments in order to:
(a) confirm that contractual enforcement is a core responsibility within the ICANN mission and clarify that such enforcement is consistent with ICANN’s “limited technical mission”[1] <#150b4e41dcf6f48f_150b4bd6970253f6__ftn1>,
(b) either delete the proposed Bylaws Amendment on Human Rights or embrace all Human Rights listed in the UN Convention,
(c) reinstate the requirement to balance Commitments and Core Values,
(d) make certain that AoC Reviews (and particularly the commitment at para. 566) are part of the Fundamental Bylaws and make certain all constituencies, including the IPC, are directly represented on the Review Teams,
(e) clarify that the recommended changes in structure do not affect AoC reviews currently in progress,
(f) adjust voting weight in the Single Member Model to more accurately reflect community interests, including intellectual property interests,
(g) provide a method for challenging Board decisions even where the majority does not support such a challenge,
(h) retain Stress Test 18 regarding GAC consensus advice,
(i) delete Stress Tests 29 and 30 as they are contrary to the concept that robust contractual enforcement is a key part of ICANN’s mission,
(j) provide for interim remedies available to the Community pending a reconsideration or IRP which suspends implementation by the Board of a “captured” policy, and
(k) deal with the possibility that the exercise of a Community Power may also be “captured” and provides a remedy for that situation.”
Thank you,
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP*
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) 520.629.4428 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>*
*AAikman@lrrlaw.com <AAikman@lrrlaw.com>** | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
*From:* ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Thursday, October 29, 2015 6:52 AM *To:* IPC-GNSO *Subject:* Re: [IPC-GNSO] Updated Timeline for CCWG-Accountability
This time, with the attachment.
Greg
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Attached please find the latest version of the timeline for the completion of the CCWG's work.
We should consider how we will work within these timelines, both with regard to providing public comments and with regard to our role in the Chartering Organization approval process within the GNSO.
Greg
------------------------------
[1] <#150b4e41dcf6f48f_150b4bd6970253f6__ftnref1> Alternatively, the CCWG could simply eliminate references to the “limited technical mission” of ICANN.
------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
