Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 5 - Mission - 3rd reading conclusions
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<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Date: Monday, January 25, 2016 at 5:05 AM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity_2016-2DJanuary_009725.html&d=CwQGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=lzj8v1kvCk6YVY-j-3w2qOhWX5mMI5IPL9r5LunULM0&s=4L1cGahaUtTeaOP1eJ6G0Uk5DeFP3lkZmW-Nm78o5GM&e=> 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
Dear Becky, Thanks for search and your three options . I personally support your option 2 since Options 1 and 3 uses the term" ratifies" which is very strong words and has a high level of legal connotations due to the fact that we may need to specify the criteria of ratification ( simple majority, super majority and so on....)whereas the term " implement" has an operational cobnnotation. Regards Kavouss 2016-01-25 17:39 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:
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* <http://www.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/00... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_a...> 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello Kavous, The word ratify has been existing on the gPDP and other RIR PDP documents and does not pose any misunderstanding. gPDP(section 6a): http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-attachmentA-29oct04.htm The reason why it may be good to include that word is to ensure that the 2 current roles of ICANN as it concerns numbers is clearly captured (re policy and operator wise). For instance ICANN(IANA) only implements the IETF protocols (I am told there was a time board approval was in the loop), so if we used the word implement only, we may not be clearly reflecting the role of ICANN on numbers globally. Whether ICANN should remain in the position of ratifying global policies is a question that I believe is out of scope for this WG. Regards On 25 Jan 2016 17:52, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Becky, Thanks for search and your three options . I personally support your option 2 since Options 1 and 3 uses the term" ratifies" which is very strong words and has a high level of legal connotations due to the fact that we may need to specify the criteria of ratification ( simple majority, super majority and so on....)whereas the term " implement" has an operational cobnnotation. Regards Kavouss
2016-01-25 17:39 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:
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* <http://www.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/00... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_a...> 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear all, If something was incorrectly in the current text that does not justify to follow that inappropriate text. If you hold someone upside down for a century it does not justify to continue to do that. Is there is a dictatorship it does not mean that dsmocracy should not be put in place democracy. Inappropriate precedence SHALL NOT be pursued . I therefore have difficulties to accept ratification. Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 25 Jan 2016, at 19:04, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Kavous,
The word ratify has been existing on the gPDP and other RIR PDP documents and does not pose any misunderstanding. gPDP(section 6a): http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-attachmentA-29oct04.htm
The reason why it may be good to include that word is to ensure that the 2 current roles of ICANN as it concerns numbers is clearly captured (re policy and operator wise).
For instance ICANN(IANA) only implements the IETF protocols (I am told there was a time board approval was in the loop), so if we used the word implement only, we may not be clearly reflecting the role of ICANN on numbers globally.
Whether ICANN should remain in the position of ratifying global policies is a question that I believe is out of scope for this WG.
Regards
On 25 Jan 2016 17:52, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Becky, Thanks for search and your three options . I personally support your option 2 since Options 1 and 3 uses the term" ratifies" which is very strong words and has a high level of legal connotations due to the fact that we may need to specify the criteria of ratification ( simple majority, super majority and so on....)whereas the term " implement" has an operational cobnnotation. Regards Kavouss
2016-01-25 17:39 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:
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/00... 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello Kavous, Actually on this particular subject, myself and you are both speaking un-authoritatively(at least for me). The one with final view on all these, is the representatives of the numbers community (NRO-EC and NRO-NC(which also doubles as ASO)). It may therefore be good to ask the numbers community what they prefer and if ICANN board okays it then we are good to go. I have only stated my personal views based on my experience (little as it may be) within the numbers community. Regards On 25 Jan 2016 9:02 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all, If something was incorrectly in the current text that does not justify to follow that inappropriate text. If you hold someone upside down for a century it does not justify to continue to do that. Is there is a dictatorship it does not mean that dsmocracy should not be put in place democracy. Inappropriate precedence SHALL NOT be pursued . I therefore have difficulties to accept ratification. Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 25 Jan 2016, at 19:04, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Kavous,
The word ratify has been existing on the gPDP and other RIR PDP documents and does not pose any misunderstanding. gPDP(section 6a): http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-attachmentA-29oct04.htm
The reason why it may be good to include that word is to ensure that the 2 current roles of ICANN as it concerns numbers is clearly captured (re policy and operator wise).
For instance ICANN(IANA) only implements the IETF protocols (I am told there was a time board approval was in the loop), so if we used the word implement only, we may not be clearly reflecting the role of ICANN on numbers globally.
Whether ICANN should remain in the position of ratifying global policies is a question that I believe is out of scope for this WG.
Regards On 25 Jan 2016 17:52, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Becky, Thanks for search and your three options . I personally support your option 2 since Options 1 and 3 uses the term" ratifies" which is very strong words and has a high level of legal connotations due to the fact that we may need to specify the criteria of ratification ( simple majority, super majority and so on....)whereas the term " implement" has an operational cobnnotation. Regards Kavouss
2016-01-25 17:39 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:
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* <http://www.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/00... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_a...> 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Sir, Pls read my reply If some thing is out of scope of our activity the choice between implement and ratify is also outside of out scope Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 25 Jan 2016, at 19:04, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Kavous,
The word ratify has been existing on the gPDP and other RIR PDP documents and does not pose any misunderstanding. gPDP(section 6a): http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-attachmentA-29oct04.htm
The reason why it may be good to include that word is to ensure that the 2 current roles of ICANN as it concerns numbers is clearly captured (re policy and operator wise).
For instance ICANN(IANA) only implements the IETF protocols (I am told there was a time board approval was in the loop), so if we used the word implement only, we may not be clearly reflecting the role of ICANN on numbers globally.
Whether ICANN should remain in the position of ratifying global policies is a question that I believe is out of scope for this WG.
Regards
On 25 Jan 2016 17:52, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Becky, Thanks for search and your three options . I personally support your option 2 since Options 1 and 3 uses the term" ratifies" which is very strong words and has a high level of legal connotations due to the fact that we may need to specify the criteria of ratification ( simple majority, super majority and so on....)whereas the term " implement" has an operational cobnnotation. Regards Kavouss
2016-01-25 17:39 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:
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/00... 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 07:04:50PM +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Whether ICANN should remain in the position of ratifying global policies is a question that I believe is out of scope for this WG.
I wish to be perfectly clear that I don't have a strong preference on how this wording comes out, except that it be acceptable to the NRO. The worry about "whether ICANN should remain in this position", however, was part of what motivated the earlier IAB concern about the relevant language for protocol parameters. Once language is in the mission, it will be hard to change should the MoU end. I think that's why the issue is in scope for this CCWG. But again, I am most focussed on nailing down something that everyone can live with, because we are rapidly running out of daylight. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
On 25/01/2016 16:39, Burr, Becky wrote:
Update in advance of call:
The ASO language still seems to be something of a moving target.
I have a slightly orthogonal concern (not related to the difference between your versions):
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.
As I understand it, the source of authority for IP numbers policy is the Regional Internet Registries (who are represented by the NRO), not ICANN. ICANN simply acts as to faciliate coordination for a subset of IP addressing policy, specifically those polices that need to be ratified at a global level (because they affect multiple regions). It is worth noting that the scope of the MoU is explicitly limited to "Internet number resource policies that have the agreement of all RIRs according to their policy development processes and ICANN, and require specific actions or outcomes on the part of IANA or any other external ICANN-related body in order to be implemented". Other Internet number resource policies are therefore out of scope of the MoU. https://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm Does the above Bylaws language reflect the sense that the RIRs are the source of authority, and that ICANN's involvement derives from the MoU? I am not so sure that it does. I am a little concerned that with this language it might be argued that ICANN (as the ratifier) is the source of authority, but that it has delegated policy formation to the RIRs through the MoU, while retaining a degree of control, namely requiring the RIRs to act in accordance with its terms. This may seem an esoteric point, but it would be quite pertinent if the MoU were to terminate. Would ICANN be left with control of number resource policy, and free to delegate it to a replacement for the NRO? Or would it be left with the RIRs, who would be free to create a replacement for the ASO to perform the function of ratification at a global level? I do not think we should risk introducing any ambiguity about this important issue. I am not sure of the precise wording for a fix, but it might look something like this: "Further, it ratifies, at the global level, policies related to these IP and AS numbers when a requested by the Number Resource Organization to perform that function." The MoU would then simply constitute the NRO's request, and the terms thereof. I look forward to your comments, Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
participants (5)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Burr, Becky -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Malcolm Hutty -
Seun Ojedeji