Becky
Thank you for reply
But the qualifiers are subject to whose judgement? ICANN? OR the Community.
If these two composed  qualifier are an option for ICANN to decide how reasonably appropriate  achieve the mission's objhectives, If they do not avcheive those objectives reasonably appropriate  they could claim that it was  neither reasonable nor appropriate to do so.
Whether the text was or was not subject to public comments , I do not care. It is wrong at this stage
You put the acheivement of the mission subject to judgement of ICANN as being reasonably appropriate to acheive or not.
Please read the text carefully or consult other lawyers
Kavouss


2015-11-03 21:56 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:
Confused Martin – none of the language re names has changed for months Martin, other than changing "Domain names (forming a system referred to as "DNS”)” to "names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (“DNS”).  Otherwise the language remains exactly the same. 
 
J. Beckwith Burr
Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer


From: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>
Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 12:35 PM
To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, "iab@iab.org" <iab@iab.org>
Subject: RE: WP2 Issues from last night's call

Becky, all,

 

I’m sorry, but I have some concerns with the text as it has evolved for (new 1) the names part of the mission statement.  Not having been on today’s call, this might have been covered.  However, the new wording does seem to me to extend the role of ICANN for ccTLDs.

 

For ccTLDs the ICANN policy role is limited to root-zone issues and those that can be directly linked to security, stability and resilience of the DNS.  The new wording appears to me to broaden the coverage.

 

First bullet:  “reasonably necessary to facilitate openness, interoperability [and/or] security…”:  I’m not sure I know what reasonably necessary means, but in association with the qualities, it could easily be interpreted as harmonising on specific requirements.  Could we think of some wording that limits the potential for mission creep?  How about, “For which coordinated resolution is appropriate and necessary to facilitate resilience, security and/or stability.”?

 

Second bullet:  I have significant concerns about the word “designed.”  Could we replace the bullet with, “That are developed through a bottom-up, consensus-based multi-stakeholder process and that are necessary to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique names system.”?

 

 

Martin

 

 

 

 

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky
Sent: 03 November 2015 15:14
To: Accountability Community; Andrew Sullivan; iab@iab.org
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] WP2 Issues from last night's call

 

I’ve attached a revised deck trying to lay out our conclusions from last night.

 

1.  We concluded to resolve the support/coordinate problem by eliminating the chapeau in the Mission Statement.  See Slide 1 and the side-by-side document

2.  Kavouss strongly urged us to modify the language of the regulatory preclusion.  I have taken a shot at that in purple in the side-by-side document

3.  Greg Shatan proposed a modification to the contracting language also reflected in purple on slide 2

4.  We agreed to put transparency points 1 and 2 in WS1 and to address points 3 and 4 as part of WS2.

 

Becky

 

 

J. Beckwith Burr

Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer

 

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community