I fully agree with Becky's learned counsel. Sent with Good (www.good.com) ________________________________ From: Burr, Becky Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 04:11:20 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh; Rosemary E. Fei Cc: ICANN-Adler; Thomas Rickert; Accountability Cross Community; ACCT-Staff (acct-staff@icann.org); Sidley ICANN CCWG Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract I agree with Kavouss that we are possibly embarking on a task with no sensible output here. We have said clearly that by grandfathering we mean that parties intended (and intend) to be bound to the terms of the registry agreement, including PICs. (It probably should mean that applicants intend to be bound by the terms of their application as well.) My prediction is that the lawyers will look at PICs – the many hundreds that there are – and say “Whether or not these PICs are within ICANN’s Mission depends – as is the case today - in substantial part, on the manner in which the registry operator implements the specific commitment and the manner in which ICANN enforces them.” As a lawyer, I would be very reluctant to make pronouncements about whether or not a specific provision will be enforceable in every conceivable case. Rather, I would want to first know the specific facts that give rise to a dispute about its enforceability, and even then would be well-advised to remind my audience that my opinion is limited to the specific factual situation under consideration. 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neustar.biz&d=CwMF-g...> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 3:23 AM To: "Rosemary E. Fei" <rfei@adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>> Cc: ICANN-Adler <ICANN@adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, "ACCT-Staff (acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>)" <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract Dear Rosemary, Dear Leon Dear All, Before certifying question to be studied , one need to verify the practicality and workability of the study. Issue 1 How many PICs have been received? Perhaps some 500 Issue 2 How many were expected to have been received? Perhaps About 1930, equal to the No. of strings gTLDs Issue 3 How many supplementary PICs Were submitted by applicants? No Real statistics Issue 4 Are there any typical or some typical PIC or PICs available? Issue 5 What the meaning of term "typical PIC "in legal language? Issue 6 Does a typical PIC, if any, could cover the objectives of PIC in general legal terms? I think we are hijacked by a question raised which would be Impractical to study and impractical to infer ant thing from that. Now, should we not DROP the Question? Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 12 Dec 2015, at 00:50, Rosemary E. Fei <rfei@adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>> wrote: How large is the universe of existing PICs? Perhaps someone on the CCWG could provide us with a representative sampling of existing PICs, and we can then review them and draw our own conclusions about what’s a “typical” provision? Rosemary Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> www.adlercolvin.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adlercolvin.com&d=Cw...> _____________________________ Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email. From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:malcolm@linx.net] Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 3:34 PM To: Holly Gregory Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Sidley ICANN CCWG; ICANN-Adler; ACCT-Staff (acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>); Thomas Rickert; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract On 11 Dec 2015, at 22:15, Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> wrote: We will need information on the kind of provisions that PICs have typically included. Could ICANN legal provide that information to us? And therein lies the rub. I think CCWG members are likely to have differing views as to what should be considered "typical" and what aberrant. Nor would I consider ICANN legal a neutral advisor to you on this, if it were making any kind of qualitative judgement. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=uLp9kv7nYUn7Kz12j3b3UJEic1UnkjsSz1Ay-jrEOpI&s=2o4uEjtb4QjwXP2NbaKqw_m1YF6zzDv_l3Sfy3vHd3c&e=> **************************************************************************************************** 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. ****************************************************************************************************