Update in advance of call:

The ASO language still seems to be something of a moving target.  I believe the following 3 versions are in play:

Version 1:  Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol ("IP") and Autonomous System ("AS") numbers. Further, it ratifies, at the global level, policies related to these IP and AS numbers and developed according to the ICANN Address Supporting Organization (ASO) Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the Number Resource Organization dated 21 October, 2004, as may be amended from time to time in accordance with its terms.

 

Version 2:  Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol (“IP”) and Autonomous System (“AS”) numbers. Further, it implements, at the global level, policies related to these IP and AS numbers and developed pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the Number Resource Organization dated 21 October, 2004, as may be amended from time to time in accordance with its terms.

 

Version 3:  Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol (“IP”) and Autonomous System (“AS”) numbers. Further, it ratifies and implements, at the global level, policies related to these IP and AS numbers and developed pursuant to the ICANN Address Supporting Organization (ASO) Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the Number Resource Organization dated 21 October, 2004, as may be amended from time to time in accordance with its terms.


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: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org>
Date: Monday, January 25, 2016 at 5:05 AM
To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 5 - Mission - 3rd reading conclusions

Sent on behalf of CoChairs 

Please find below the conclusions (3rd reading) of our mission deliberations during call #78. The updated document is attached. 

Conclusions:
1. On Consumer Trust: agreement to keep Third Draft Proposal language. Reference to Consumer Trust should not be added to Core Values. It will be included at part of AOC reviews.
2. Discuss ALAC concern regarding removal of the words “where feasible and appropriate” in Core Value 4 that states : Depending on market mechanisms to promote and sustain a healthy competitive environment in the DNS market
3. Awaiting Board input on root servers
4. On numbers language, wordsmithing is needed based on input from lawyers - see http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/009725.html and proposed language from ASO: "Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol (“IP”) and Autonomous System (“AS”) numbers. Further, it ratifies, at the global level, policies related to these IP and AS numbers and developed according to the ASO-MoU." 
5. On RSSAC language:  
[RSSAC PROPOSED TEXT:  Facilitates coordinatesion of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system.]  
[BOARD PROPOSED TEXT: Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system.  In this role, ICANN’s Mission is to [to be provided by RSSAC]. ICANN retains an operational role as well as considers inputs from the communities dependent on the root server system.]
6. Discuss the issue around the scope of ICANN’s agreements with contracted parties (page 10). 3rd draft provisions are : 
a. ICANN shall not impose regulations on services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide.
b. ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements with contracted parties in furtherance service of its Mission.
c. Take into consideration legal advice : “For clients facing similar dilemmas, a common approach is to draft general principles into governing documents and provide a mechanism for interpreting them in specific situations.  We recommend that the CCWG agree upon and articulate mission principles at a general level appropriate for inclusion in the Bylaws, understanding that refinement and interpretation will be needed thereafter”.  
7. Grandfathering. Discuss questions raised by lawyers : 
a. What is the effective cut-off date for the grandfathering?  This could be a specified date in the future, or could be an event, such as the date of adoption of the relevant Fundamental Bylaw.
b. Should RAs that are in the process of being put in place but have not yet been finalized and signed as of the effective date, be included or excluded?  If that should depend on how far along in the process they are, what should be the standard for deciding that point?
c. Should renewals of existing RAs, unchanged, that contain PICs covered by the grandfathering clause, be included?  If so, should there be a limit on the number of renewals that will be covered?  Should grandfathering cover PICs that are not modified, even though other provisions of the agreement are changed?
d. What if an existing RA/RAA includes a grandfathered PIC, and the agreement is modified, by mutual agreement or otherwise -- is it still grandfathered?  
e. Should all grandfathering have a sunset date, i.e., a point far enough in the future on which all grandfathering protection will expire?
8. Discuss request to provide impact assessment as requested by several group members. 

Fourth reading is planned for Tuesday, 26 January.

Best regards

Mathieu, Thomas, León