Agreed. This looks good to me. Best, Keith

On Nov 24, 2015, at 12:42 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:

I am ok with ³taking into account the use of domain names as identifiers in various natural languages² if that is acceptable to others. We are, however, not drafting bylaws language at this point.

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>

...

On 11/24/15, 12:34 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

...

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 05:14:56PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:

1. The prohibition on the regulation of ³content² is not intended to prevent ICANN policies from taking into account the semantic meaning of domain names.

Could I suggest a friendly amendment? Perhaps "taking into account issues with respect to domain name registrations as such"? Or "taking into account the use of domain names as identifiers in various natural languages"? Many of us are at regular pains to point out that "the semantic meaning of domain names" is a empty set, since domain names as such are arbitrary and have no language associated with them (and might not be in a language at all -- com and org are not in themselves meaningful strings). In any case, I don't think you want even a generous reading of that, because if we get into issues around the meaning of domain names, we are almost certainly on the slippery slope to regulating content anyway.

It would be _really bad_ if any suggestion that domain names had in themselves semantic meaning made it into the bylaws.

Best regards,

A

-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

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

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 05:53:09PM +0000, Mueller, Milton L wrote:

Andrew, do you mean "taking into account the _meaning_ of domain names in various natural languages"?

No. If you say that, then you have a reason for national authorities to insist that ICANN impose rules on domain name registrations everywhere because some "word" in the DNS is offensive to someone. The DNS isn't made up of words and DNS labels do not have meaning, because they are not in a language. This is why talking about the use of a domain name in a natural language, rather than its meaning, is the distinction we need to make. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

Fine with that tweak as well. I do want to make one suggested change to a drafting note, which is a point of clarity and is consistent with discussion on the call, as well as the back and forth on this list. We very much need to ensure that these restrictions are not going to be used to poke holes in the presumptive validity of provisions in the RAA and RA and PICs, which are supported by the Specs. So I propose: * The issues identified in Specifications 1 and 11 to the Registry Agreement and Specification 4 to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (the so-called "Picket Fence"), as well the associated provisions of such agreements (including but not limited to Sections 3.18 and 3.7.7. of the RAA) are intended and understood to be within the scope of ICANN's Mission Bradley From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 12:54 PM To: Mueller, Milton L; Accountability Community; ACCT-Staff Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract I am fine with "in service of" - just used in furtherance of because that is what the David Post language came around with 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: <Mueller>, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 12:50 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract Becky: The statement on ICANN's ability to enforce contracts: "in service of" its mission was clearly the most popular and acceptable language; "in furtherance of" was the least popular and acceptable. Please revert to "in service of" --MM From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 12:15 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>; ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract Based on our call earlier today, I have modified the side-by-side comparison of the Mission Statement (comparing current Bylaws, 2nd Draft Proposal, and proposed 3rd Draft Proposal language) to reflect the 2nd Draft Proposal language plus the contract language as follows: ICANN shall act strictly in accordance with, and only as reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission. ICANN shall not impose regulations on services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide. ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements with contracted parties in furtherance of its Mission. I have added the following Note per our discussion: Note to drafters: In crafting proposed Bylaws language to reflect this Mission Statement, the CCWG wishes the drafters to reflect the following considerations: The prohibition on the regulation of "content" is not intended to prevent ICANN policies from taking into account the semantic meaning of domain names. The issues identified in Specification 1 to the Registry Agreement and Specification 4 to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (the so-called "Picket Fence") are intended and understood to be within the scope of ICANN's Mission. A side-by-side comparison of the formulation of the Picket Fence in the respective agreements is attached for reference. The PDF (as well as the PDF of the Picket Fence language) is attached. Please note also that I have added a general note to the effect that we expect the the Bylaws drafters may need to modify the Articles of Incorporation to align with the substantive changes to the Bylaws. Becky 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> ================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. =================================================================

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:05:49PM -0500, Greg Shatan wrote:

Wouldn't it just be easier to say: "Domain names" are not included in the definition of "content" for purposes of this provision. ?

I'm not opposed to what you suggest. I think the previous argument was that in some cases they seem to be, because some people think that regulations on offensive strings and so on are in effect content regulations. I thought (though I confess my brain was a little addled) the way Becky put it was in line with what we said on the call; I'm just suggesting the little tweak. (In case it's going to cause a lot of trouble, this is certainly not my ditch and I hope today is not my day. I'm just pointing out that opening the door to names having a meaning is where the danger lies.) A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 04:39:56PM -0500, George Sadowsky wrote:

So let's probe this a bit.

Does that mean that future guidebooks can't disallow any future strings from consideration, unlike round 1? I think you'll find a lot of people who would disagree that

.horribly_insulting_string

This is the reason I included the "use in natual language" bit. The reason that string is "horribly insulting" is because of the linguistic context, not the DNS. The DNS doesn't carry the meaning, but there's nothing wrong with ICANN making policies about strings it will delegate. It does that all the time. It also has a policy, for instance, that it won't delegate ASCII strings outside the LDH range, and that strings that have "-" in the second and third positions MUST be A-labels, and so on. ICANN also won't delegate underscore labels, at least not yet. None of these restrictions come from the DNS either.

Much as I'd like to treat domain names as arbitrary strings that have no meaning for the computers that parse them, they do have semantic content, sometimes very strong and offensive semantic content, and they will evoke strong reactions

I think you're conflating "how things get used in natural languages" and "how things get used globally". There's a whole literature (much of it full of urban legends) about brands that didn't translate well across cultural borders because of supposed meaning in the new language. (My favourite urban legend one is the Chevy Nova, which supposedly meant "doesn't go" in Spanish. From what I saw of my neighbour's car, that's what it meant in English too.) ICANN is no more in the business of deciding what strings are offensive than it is in the business of deciding what's a country. Instead, it can appeal to other sources for decisions -- ISO or community consensus or whatever -- for that reasoning, and merely needs to be interested in how domain names (especially at or near the root) are used by people. That _certainly_ includes thinking about their natural languages (and then appealing to those other sources for decisions).

BTW, if they didn't have semantic content, they really would be useless to us, wouldn't they? If that were the case, we might as well go back to using numbers instead. POTS, anyone?

About 40% of the people I interact with over the Internet realise that "anvilwalrusden" is an anagram of "andrewsullivan". Does "anvilwalrusden" have semantic content? Well, it does to me (and probably to all of you now, too -- quick, don't think of a pink elephant!), but I'll wager a pretty good lunch that it has negligible semantic content to anyone I've never met in (say) West Vancouver, to say nothing of South Korea. Canadians always know exactly what I mean when I give them my email address, <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>; USians can't even pronounce it unless they live near the border. And lots of labels in the DNS have at best ambiguous semantics anyway -- this is why certain country codes are able to sell expensive domain names to television celebrities or those wanting a domain name that looks like an adverb in English. And what is the meaning of ns1? How about _dkim? In Korean? In Urdu? ICANN gets into very deep water when it starts trying to be a meaning-maker. I don't think you want that.

I think we had better get this right at the beginning rather than having it bedevil us in future new gTLD rounds.

If we don't talk about "meaning" and instead talk about the way people use them, we'll be just fine. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

(I dropped the staff alias; this doesn't seem like instructions to them.) On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 05:29:57PM -0500, George Sadowsky wrote:

1. Can ICANN Inc. make policies regarding which strings they will delegate? What are the degrees of freedom under which they can make them?

Yes, of course it can. It has the control over the root zone, and it can make approximately any policy it likes about delegation from there, for the same reasons that any zone operator makes those policies. If ICANN wants to make rules about strings in $language, and how it will treat those strings when making policy evaluations, it can go nuts. It can decide that it will not make delegations using any string that contains the letter "q" for all I care. But whatever that string is and whatever it means in whatever language was under consideration, that's not the "semantic meaning" of the _domain name_. I'm aware that some people think this is a pointless distinction, but the failure to have made it in the past is how ICANN (from what I've heard, in the person of one of its former CEOs) ended up leaving people with the impression that "variants" would "work", even though it was never technically possible to make such a policy for the whole Internet. We are more than 10 years into the tragicomedy that resulted from such promises, and it's more than a little depressing to me that we're still at the stage where people do not automatically repeat, "There is no semantics to a domain name," as soon as the idea is floated.

2. Can the "ICANN community" make policies regarding which strings they will delegate? What are the degrees of freedom under which they can make them?

No idea. The distinction between the ICANN community and ICANN Inc seems to me to be a problem a long way distant from the decision to delegate a domain name by some administrator. I think this is a matter of how policies are developed inside ICANN, and it's all long before the issue of what a domain name means.

3. Milton might argue that there should be complete freedom to propose any string you'd like, and it should be accepted. Do you agree with that? (Does Milton?)

I certainly have no intention of speaking for Milton. If _I_ had my druthers, there would be complete freedom to propose any string with the guarantee that the answer would be no, but I'm not trying to make policy here. I'm trying to draw a distinction between ICANN making policy for consideration of strings in the DNS, and ICANN delegating things in the DNS. Those are different activities, and one of them has no resulting semantics.

4. Under what conditions, if any, should the semantic content of a natural language string be grounds for refusal to consider it as a new gTLD, in any future nGTLD round?

If you're going to talk about meanings of a string in some natural language, then you're already outside the DNS. That's the _whole point_ of what I'm saying. Names in the DNS happen to get used in natural language all the time. For those users of language, the domain names almost certainly have semantics. This is true even though, in the name "ns1.example.com.", neither "ns1" nor "com" is a word. But keeping the semantics outside the domain name system, and then allowing ICANN itself to figure out however it wants to decide that someone else has made meanings for the strings it needs to worry about when delegating, are a long way from talking about the "semantic meaning of a domain name". For instance, suppose I wanted to delegate really_offensive_string.crankycanuck.ca. I'm the registrant of crankycanuck.ca. This is just none of ICANN's business, and I think you'll agree that it isn't. There _certainly_ are people who have suggested that ICANN should get into regulating that by contract. If the ICANN bylaws discuss the meaning of domain names, then ICANN has to start arbitrating meanings of strings anywhere in the tree. If it's about the use of domain names, then you automatically get the protection of the delegation system of the DNS and you can quite correctly say, "Not our baliwick."

5. The problem is that these strings are read by both computers and by people, and are processed very differently, with very different reactions. Are we to ignore that?

No, but we're not to privilege the political view over ICANN's technical responsibility, either. There is no damage that results from saying "use in some natural language" instead of "meaning of a domain name", except to those who want to use ICANN as a regulator of the entire domain name system. Since the whole system was designed precisely to prevent such kinds of centralization, I regard that particular damage as entirely salubrious.

These are questions that will come up and will be important in the future. Do you think that there is unanimity regarding the answers? It doesn't matter what you or I believe if there is no unanimity, because these questions will recur and the resulting policies may not be what we or others might want.

I believe there is _not_ unanimity, because like others on this list I believe that a number of people would like very much to make ICANN a locus of contractual regulation of the Internet. I think there is unanimity among anyone who correctly understands the limited and narrow but important and legitimate role for ICANN as the operator of the root zone. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

Malcolm, Thanks for a concise, well-articulated set of responses to my questions. It's exactly what I was hoping to receive. Regards, George

On Nov 24, 2015, at 7:43 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:

...

On 24 Nov 2015, at 17:29, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky@gmail.com> wrote:

Andrew,

I'm sympathetic to your arguments, but they have implications. Here are some questions:

George,

As one of the people who has been particularly vocal about the need for the clause that gave rise to this thread, I am taking the liberty of cluttering your inbox with my own answers, to illustrate that for me at least this clause isn't intended to provoke these issues

...

1. Can ICANN Inc. make policies regarding which strings they will delegate? What are the degrees of freedom under which they can make them?

Yes. Essentially unlimited discretion as to content of the policy for the the decisions it takes; its bylaws will limit/specify process for the adoption and application of that policy (and does so in a way that merges this with Question 2). I suppose it's possible that certain core values might limit this discretion in certain outlier cases (I'm thinking of the proscription on discriminatory behaviour), but this should be marginal. In any case, the clause that gave rise to this thread isn't implicated in this question at all.

...

2. Can the "ICANN community" make policies regarding which strings they will delegate? What are the degrees of freedom under which they can make them?

See previous question. Under the bylaws, the elements of the ICANN community have various prescribed roles in the development of the policy in question.

...

3. Milton might argue that there should be complete freedom to propose any string you'd like, and it should be accepted. Do you agree with that? (Does Milton?)

If Milton does take that position, I would disagree with him (but my suspicion is that your expectation of this view is misplaced). ICANN has unlimited discretion to adopt policies that limit the strings that it will delegate, but it must follow the process set out for adopting such policies.

...

4. Under what conditions, if any, should the semantic content of a natural language string be grounds for refusal to consider it as a new gTLD, in any future nGTLD round?

Any grounds set out in properly adopted consensus policy applicable to that decision.

...

5. The problem is that these strings are read by both computers and by people, and are processed very differently, with very different reactions. Are we to ignore that?

I'm not sure what you mean, but in any case it is within the legitimate scope of applicable consensus policy to take note of, or ignore, this or any other factor.

...

These are questions that will come up and will be important in the future. Do you think that there is unanimity regarding the answers? It doesn't matter what you or I believe if there is no unanimity, because these questions will recur and the resulting policies may not be what we or others might want.

I believe that the bylaws the CCWG is proposing would lead an independent and unbiased observer with suitable expertise in applying bylaws language to determine that those bylaws objectively required the answers I have given above.

I would also contend that that, rather than perfect unanimity, is the relevant test.

Malcolm.

...

George

...

On Nov 24, 2015, at 5:11 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 04:39:56PM -0500, George Sadowsky wrote:

...

So let's probe this a bit.

Does that mean that future guidebooks can't disallow any future strings from consideration, unlike round 1? I think you'll find a lot of people who would disagree that

.horribly_insulting_string

This is the reason I included the "use in natual language" bit. The reason that string is "horribly insulting" is because of the linguistic context, not the DNS. The DNS doesn't carry the meaning, but there's nothing wrong with ICANN making policies about strings it will delegate. It does that all the time. It also has a policy, for instance, that it won't delegate ASCII strings outside the LDH range, and that strings that have "-" in the second and third positions MUST be A-labels, and so on. ICANN also won't delegate underscore labels, at least not yet. None of these restrictions come from the DNS either.

...

Much as I'd like to treat domain names as arbitrary strings that have no meaning for the computers that parse them, they do have semantic content, sometimes very strong and offensive semantic content, and they will evoke strong reactions

I think you're conflating "how things get used in natural languages" and "how things get used globally". There's a whole literature (much of it full of urban legends) about brands that didn't translate well across cultural borders because of supposed meaning in the new language. (My favourite urban legend one is the Chevy Nova, which supposedly meant "doesn't go" in Spanish. From what I saw of my neighbour's car, that's what it meant in English too.)

ICANN is no more in the business of deciding what strings are offensive than it is in the business of deciding what's a country. Instead, it can appeal to other sources for decisions -- ISO or community consensus or whatever -- for that reasoning, and merely needs to be interested in how domain names (especially at or near the root) are used by people. That _certainly_ includes thinking about their natural languages (and then appealing to those other sources for decisions).

...

BTW, if they didn't have semantic content, they really would be useless to us, wouldn't they? If that were the case, we might as well go back to using numbers instead. POTS, anyone?

About 40% of the people I interact with over the Internet realise that "anvilwalrusden" is an anagram of "andrewsullivan". Does "anvilwalrusden" have semantic content? Well, it does to me (and probably to all of you now, too -- quick, don't think of a pink elephant!), but I'll wager a pretty good lunch that it has negligible semantic content to anyone I've never met in (say) West Vancouver, to say nothing of South Korea. Canadians always know exactly what I mean when I give them my email address, <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>; USians can't even pronounce it unless they live near the border. And lots of labels in the DNS have at best ambiguous semantics anyway -- this is why certain country codes are able to sell expensive domain names to television celebrities or those wanting a domain name that looks like an adverb in English. And what is the meaning of ns1? How about _dkim? In Korean? In Urdu? ICANN gets into very deep water when it starts trying to be a meaning-maker. I don't think you want that.

...

I think we had better get this right at the beginning rather than having it bedevil us in future new gTLD rounds.

If we don't talk about "meaning" and instead talk about the way people use them, we'll be just fine.

Best regards,

A

-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

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

Thank Becky - sure - we don't need to call out specific provisions if its clear we are grandfathering existing agreements. From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 2:09 PM To: Silver, Bradley; Mueller, Milton L; Accountability Community; ACCT-Staff Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract Bradley, I agree that 3.18 and 3.7.7 of the RAA are within the picket fence, and I think several other folks did as well. Also, I think that we did agree to grandfather existing agreements - happy to add as part of the drafting note. But it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to start calling out particular sections of the agreements - does that mean other parts of the agreement that are not called out are automatically suspect? Can we stick with the agreement reached last night? 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: <Silver>, Bradley <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>> Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 1:50 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract Fine with that tweak as well. I do want to make one suggested change to a drafting note, which is a point of clarity and is consistent with discussion on the call, as well as the back and forth on this list. We very much need to ensure that these restrictions are not going to be used to poke holes in the presumptive validity of provisions in the RAA and RA and PICs, which are supported by the Specs. So I propose: * The issues identified in Specifications 1 and 11to the Registry Agreement and Specification 4 to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (the so-called "Picket Fence"), as well the associated provisions of such agreements (including but not limited to Sections 3.18 and 3.7.7. of the RAA) are intended and understood to be within the scope of ICANN's Mission Bradley From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 12:54 PM To: Mueller, Milton L; Accountability Community; ACCT-Staff Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract I am fine with "in service of" - just used in furtherance of because that is what the David Post language came around with 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: <Mueller>, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 12:50 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract Becky: The statement on ICANN's ability to enforce contracts: "in service of" its mission was clearly the most popular and acceptable language; "in furtherance of" was the least popular and acceptable. Please revert to "in service of" --MM From:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 12:15 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>; ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract Based on our call earlier today, I have modified the side-by-side comparison of the Mission Statement (comparing current Bylaws, 2nd Draft Proposal, and proposed 3rd Draft Proposal language) to reflect the 2nd Draft Proposal language plus the contract language as follows: ICANN shall act strictly in accordance with, and only as reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission. ICANN shall not impose regulations on services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide. ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements with contracted parties in furtherance of its Mission. I have added the following Note per our discussion: Note to drafters: In crafting proposed Bylaws language to reflect this Mission Statement, the CCWG wishes the drafters to reflect the following considerations: The prohibition on the regulation of "content" is not intended to prevent ICANN policies from taking into account the semantic meaning of domain names. The issues identified in Specification 1 to the Registry Agreement and Specification 4 to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (the so-called "Picket Fence") are intended and understood to be within the scope of ICANN's Mission. A side-by-side comparison of the formulation of the Picket Fence in the respective agreements is attached for reference. The PDF (as well as the PDF of the Picket Fence language) is attached. Please note also that I have added a general note to the effect that we expect the the Bylaws drafters may need to modify the Articles of Incorporation to align with the substantive changes to the Bylaws. Becky 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> ================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. ================================================================= ================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. =================================================================

Agree with Julia. A legal assessment would be necessary. Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 26.11.2015 um 13:00 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>: Dear colleagues, The discussions on this issue, including the status of the Draft Proposal, have been somewhat challenging to follow. After the last CCWG call 24 November and the discussion on the list with regard to the Mission Statement, the “picket fence” and the termination of the PICs, especially, I would appreciate a clarification (legal?) of what it would mean for GAC’s public policy advice, for example à la the advice the GAC has given on “sensitive strings” and the Boards ability to implement and enforce public policy advice from the GAC. Best regards, Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 24. november 2015 20:09 Til: Silver, Bradley; Mueller, Milton L; Accountability Community; ACCT-Staff Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract Bradley, I agree that 3.18 and 3.7.7 of the RAA are within the picket fence, and I think several other folks did as well. Also, I think that we did agree to grandfather existing agreements – happy to add as part of the drafting note. But it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to start calling out particular sections of the agreements – does that mean other parts of the agreement that are not called out are automatically suspect? Can we stick with the agreement reached last night? 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: <Silver>, Bradley <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>> Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 1:50 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract Fine with that tweak as well. I do want to make one suggested change to a drafting note, which is a point of clarity and is consistent with discussion on the call, as well as the back and forth on this list. We very much need to ensure that these restrictions are not going to be used to poke holes in the presumptive validity of provisions in the RAA and RA and PICs, which are supported by the Specs. So I propose: · The issues identified in Specifications 1 and 11to the Registry Agreement and Specification 4 to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (the so-called “Picket Fence”), as well the associated provisions of such agreements (including but not limited to Sections 3.18 and 3.7.7. of the RAA) are intended and understood to be within the scope of ICANN’s Mission Bradley From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 12:54 PM To: Mueller, Milton L; Accountability Community; ACCT-Staff Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract I am fine with “in service of” - just used in furtherance of because that is what the David Post language came around with 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: <Mueller>, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 12:50 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract Becky: The statement on ICANN’s ability to enforce contracts: “in service of” its mission was clearly the most popular and acceptable language; “in furtherance of” was the least popular and acceptable. Please revert to “in service of” --MM From:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 12:15 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>; ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract Based on our call earlier today, I have modified the side-by-side comparison of the Mission Statement (comparing current Bylaws, 2nd Draft Proposal, and proposed 3rd Draft Proposal language) to reflect the 2nd Draft Proposal language plus the contract language as follows: ICANN shall act strictly in accordance with, and only as reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission. ICANN shall not impose regulations on services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide. ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements with contracted parties in furtherance of its Mission. I have added the following Note per our discussion: Note to drafters: In crafting proposed Bylaws language to reflect this Mission Statement, the CCWG wishes the drafters to reflect the following considerations: The prohibition on the regulation of “content” is not intended to prevent ICANN policies from taking into account the semantic meaning of domain names. The issues identified in Specification 1 to the Registry Agreement and Specification 4 to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (the so-called “Picket Fence”) are intended and understood to be within the scope of ICANN’s Mission. A side-by-side comparison of the formulation of the Picket Fence in the respective agreements is attached for reference. The PDF (as well as the PDF of the Picket Fence language) is attached. Please note also that I have added a general note to the effect that we expect the the Bylaws drafters may need to modify the Articles of Incorporation to align with the substantive changes to the Bylaws. Becky 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> ================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. ================================================================= _______________________________________________ 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

Julia, To reiterate, we are clarifying the existing Mission, not changing it. Our clarification does not terminate existing PICs. The GAC continues to be free to offer whatever Advice it likes, including on “sensitive strings” and other public policy issues. ICANN remains obligated to consider that Advice and to attempt to identify mutually acceptable solutions in the event of disagreement in accordance with the Bylaws. As is presently the case, the ICANN Board's final decision on whether to accept GAC Advice and how to implement such Advice must remain consistent with the ICANN Bylaws. Becky 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: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net<mailto:malcolm@linx.net>> Date: Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 7:52 AM To: Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> Cc: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>>, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract On 26 Nov 2015, at 06:58, Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> wrote: Dear colleagues, The discussions on this issue, including the status of the Draft Proposal, have been somewhat challenging to follow. After the last CCWG call 24 November and the discussion on the list with regard to the Mission Statement, the “picket fence” and the termination of the PICs, especially, I would appreciate a clarification (legal?) of what it would mean for GAC’s public policy advice, for example à la the advice the GAC has given on “sensitive strings” and the Boards ability to implement and enforce public policy advice from the GAC. Dear Julia, There is no intention to limit ICANN's ability to decline to delegate domains containing sensitive strings in accordance with consensus policy (and so, in accordance with GAC advice that a particular string is sensitive). There is however, an intention that ICANN's Mission be limited; since there is no limit to what GAC public policy advice may contain, the possibility that ICANN will not be in a position to do things the GAC might ask for cannot be entirely excluded. But I would hope that the GAC would not ask ICANN to act outside its Mission. Kind Regards, Malcolm. Best regards, Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk...> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH PPlease consider the environment before printing this email. Fra:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 24. november 2015 20:09 Til: Silver, Bradley; Mueller, Milton L; Accountability Community; ACCT-Staff Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract Bradley, I agree that 3.18 and 3.7.7 of the RAA are within the picket fence, and I think several other folks did as well. Also, I think that we did agree to grandfather existing agreements – happy to add as part of the drafting note. But it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to start calling out particular sections of the agreements – does that mean other parts of the agreement that are not called out are automatically suspect? Can we stick with the agreement reached last night? 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: <Silver>, Bradley <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>> Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 1:50 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract Fine with that tweak as well. I do want to make one suggested change to a drafting note, which is a point of clarity and is consistent with discussion on the call, as well as the back and forth on this list. We very much need to ensure that these restrictions are not going to be used to poke holes in the presumptive validity of provisions in the RAA and RA and PICs, which are supported by the Specs. So I propose: · The issues identified in Specifications 1 and 11to the Registry Agreement and Specification 4 to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (the so-called “Picket Fence”), as well the associated provisions of such agreements (including but not limited to Sections 3.18 and 3.7.7. of the RAA) are intended and understood to be within the scope of ICANN’s Mission Bradley From:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 12:54 PM To: Mueller, Milton L; Accountability Community; ACCT-Staff Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract I am fine with “in service of” - just used in furtherance of because that is what the David Post language came around with 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: <Mueller>, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 12:50 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract Becky: The statement on ICANN’s ability to enforce contracts: “in service of” its mission was clearly the most popular and acceptable language; “in furtherance of” was the least popular and acceptable. Please revert to “in service of” --MM From:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 12:15 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>; ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract Based on our call earlier today, I have modified the side-by-side comparison of the Mission Statement (comparing current Bylaws, 2nd Draft Proposal, and proposed 3rd Draft Proposal language) to reflect the 2nd Draft Proposal language plus the contract language as follows: ICANN shall act strictly in accordance with, and only as reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission. ICANN shall not impose regulations on services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide. ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements with contracted parties in furtherance of its Mission. I have added the following Note per our discussion: Note to drafters: In crafting proposed Bylaws language to reflect this Mission Statement, the CCWG wishes the drafters to reflect the following considerations: The prohibition on the regulation of “content” is not intended to prevent ICANN policies from taking into account the semantic meaning of domain names. The issues identified in Specification 1 to the Registry Agreement and Specification 4 to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (the so-called “Picket Fence”) are intended and understood to be within the scope of ICANN’s Mission. A side-by-side comparison of the formulation of the Picket Fence in the respective agreements is attached for reference. The PDF (as well as the PDF of the Picket Fence language) is attached. Please note also that I have added a general note to the effect that we expect the the Bylaws drafters may need to modify the Articles of Incorporation to align with the substantive changes to the Bylaws. Becky 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> ================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. ================================================================= _______________________________________________ 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=jrHJnZg42nwT7z9ZODS-zHHGkYzmM77O-UlelzlU7Hw&s=fEJopFrvZm5Hw_DDXdH7vEYkbEyMXOQLIE_aKP5lk5Q&e=>

Dear co-Chairs to add to Julia's comment below, I feel Becky's answer is fine and appreciated, but such a sensitive issue merits a legal assessment by our lawyers, i.e. whether, and to what extent and/or under what conditions what we know as "PICs" -be it old or new- will be consistent with the new Mission language being proposed. thanks for your consideration and regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 11.12.2015 um 11:11 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>: Co-Chairs, colleagues, I am coming back to this issue and my previous question (see below) to get some clarity as this is now an issue being discussed in the GAC. I would therefore kindly ask whether the answer from Becky (below) should be seen as the authoritative one, or if the CCWG has sought a legal opinion on this? Good weekend to you all! Best, Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sendt: 26. november 2015 14:45 Til: Malcolm Hutty; Julia Katja Wolman Cc: Silver, Bradley; Mueller, Milton L; Accountability Community; ACCT-Staff Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract Julia, To reiterate, we are clarifying the existing Mission, not changing it. Our clarification does not terminate existing PICs. The GAC continues to be free to offer whatever Advice it likes, including on “sensitive strings” and other public policy issues. ICANN remains obligated to consider that Advice and to attempt to identify mutually acceptable solutions in the event of disagreement in accordance with the Bylaws. As is presently the case, the ICANN Board's final decision on whether to accept GAC Advice and how to implement such Advice must remain consistent with the ICANN Bylaws. Becky 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: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net<mailto:malcolm@linx.net>> Date: Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 7:52 AM To: Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> Cc: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>>, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract On 26 Nov 2015, at 06:58, Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> wrote: Dear colleagues, The discussions on this issue, including the status of the Draft Proposal, have been somewhat challenging to follow. After the last CCWG call 24 November and the discussion on the list with regard to the Mission Statement, the “picket fence” and the termination of the PICs, especially, I would appreciate a clarification (legal?) of what it would mean for GAC’s public policy advice, for example à la the advice the GAC has given on “sensitive strings” and the Boards ability to implement and enforce public policy advice from the GAC. Dear Julia, There is no intention to limit ICANN's ability to decline to delegate domains containing sensitive strings in accordance with consensus policy (and so, in accordance with GAC advice that a particular string is sensitive). There is however, an intention that ICANN's Mission be limited; since there is no limit to what GAC public policy advice may contain, the possibility that ICANN will not be in a position to do things the GAC might ask for cannot be entirely excluded. But I would hope that the GAC would not ask ICANN to act outside its Mission. Kind Regards, Malcolm. Best regards, Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk...> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH PPlease consider the environment before printing this email. Fra:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 24. november 2015 20:09 Til: Silver, Bradley; Mueller, Milton L; Accountability Community; ACCT-Staff Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract Bradley, I agree that 3.18 and 3.7.7 of the RAA are within the picket fence, and I think several other folks did as well. Also, I think that we did agree to grandfather existing agreements – happy to add as part of the drafting note. But it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to start calling out particular sections of the agreements – does that mean other parts of the agreement that are not called out are automatically suspect? Can we stick with the agreement reached last night? 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: <Silver>, Bradley <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>> Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 1:50 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract Fine with that tweak as well. I do want to make one suggested change to a drafting note, which is a point of clarity and is consistent with discussion on the call, as well as the back and forth on this list. We very much need to ensure that these restrictions are not going to be used to poke holes in the presumptive validity of provisions in the RAA and RA and PICs, which are supported by the Specs. So I propose: · The issues identified in Specifications 1 and 11to the Registry Agreement and Specification 4 to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (the so-called “Picket Fence”), as well the associated provisions of such agreements (including but not limited to Sections 3.18 and 3.7.7. of the RAA) are intended and understood to be within the scope of ICANN’s Mission Bradley From:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 12:54 PM To: Mueller, Milton L; Accountability Community; ACCT-Staff Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract I am fine with “in service of” - just used in furtherance of because that is what the David Post language came around with 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: <Mueller>, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 12:50 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract Becky: The statement on ICANN’s ability to enforce contracts: “in service of” its mission was clearly the most popular and acceptable language; “in furtherance of” was the least popular and acceptable. Please revert to “in service of” --MM From:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 12:15 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>; ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract Based on our call earlier today, I have modified the side-by-side comparison of the Mission Statement (comparing current Bylaws, 2nd Draft Proposal, and proposed 3rd Draft Proposal language) to reflect the 2nd Draft Proposal language plus the contract language as follows: ICANN shall act strictly in accordance with, and only as reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission. ICANN shall not impose regulations on services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide. ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements with contracted parties in furtherance of its Mission. I have added the following Note per our discussion: Note to drafters: In crafting proposed Bylaws language to reflect this Mission Statement, the CCWG wishes the drafters to reflect the following considerations: The prohibition on the regulation of “content” is not intended to prevent ICANN policies from taking into account the semantic meaning of domain names. The issues identified in Specification 1 to the Registry Agreement and Specification 4 to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (the so-called “Picket Fence”) are intended and understood to be within the scope of ICANN’s Mission. A side-by-side comparison of the formulation of the Picket Fence in the respective agreements is attached for reference. The PDF (as well as the PDF of the Picket Fence language) is attached. Please note also that I have added a general note to the effect that we expect the the Bylaws drafters may need to modify the Articles of Incorporation to align with the substantive changes to the Bylaws. Becky 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> ================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. ================================================================= _______________________________________________ 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=jrHJnZg42nwT7z9ZODS-zHHGkYzmM77O-UlelzlU7Hw&s=fEJopFrvZm5Hw_DDXdH7vEYkbEyMXOQLIE_aKP5lk5Q&e=> _______________________________________________ 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

+1 to Julia Jorge and Rafa's comments best Olga

El 11 dic 2015, a las 8:07 a.m., Perez Galindo, Rafael <RPEREZGA@minetur.es> escribió:

+1 Jorge and Julia.

This is a delicate issue that deserves careful legal analysis in order to avoid undesired effects and assure legal certainty.

Best Rafael

-----Mensaje original----- De: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Enviado el: viernes, 11 de diciembre de 2015 11:19 Para: jukacz@erst.dk CC: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Asunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract

Dear co-Chairs

to add to Julia's comment below, I feel Becky's answer is fine and appreciated, but such a sensitive issue merits a legal assessment by our lawyers, i.e. whether, and to what extent and/or under what conditions what we know as "PICs" -be it old or new- will be consistent with the new Mission language being proposed.

thanks for your consideration and regards

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 11.12.2015 um 11:11 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>:

Co-Chairs, colleagues,

I am coming back to this issue and my previous question (see below) to get some clarity as this is now an issue being discussed in the GAC. I would therefore kindly ask whether the answer from Becky (below) should be seen as the authoritative one, or if the CCWG has sought a legal opinion on this?

Good weekend to you all!

Best,

Julia

Julia Katja Wolman

DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY

Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>

MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH

P Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Fra: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sendt: 26. november 2015 14:45 Til: Malcolm Hutty; Julia Katja Wolman Cc: Silver, Bradley; Mueller, Milton L; Accountability Community; ACCT-Staff Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract

Julia,

To reiterate, we are clarifying the existing Mission, not changing it. Our clarification does not terminate existing PICs. The GAC continues to be free to offer whatever Advice it likes, including on "sensitive strings" and other public policy issues. ICANN remains obligated to consider that Advice and to attempt to identify mutually acceptable solutions in the event of disagreement in accordance with the Bylaws. As is presently the case, the ICANN Board's final decision on whether to accept GAC Advice and how to implement such Advice must remain consistent with the ICANN Bylaws.

Becky

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: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net<mailto:malcolm@linx.net>> Date: Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 7:52 AM To: Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> Cc: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>>, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract

On 26 Nov 2015, at 06:58, Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> wrote: Dear colleagues,

The discussions on this issue, including the status of the Draft Proposal, have been somewhat challenging to follow. After the last CCWG call 24 November and the discussion on the list with regard to the Mission Statement, the "picket fence" and the termination of the PICs, especially, I would appreciate a clarification (legal?) of what it would mean for GAC's public policy advice, for example à la the advice the GAC has given on "sensitive strings" and the Boards ability to implement and enforce public policy advice from the GAC.

Dear Julia,

There is no intention to limit ICANN's ability to decline to delegate domains containing sensitive strings in accordance with consensus policy (and so, in accordance with GAC advice that a particular string is sensitive).

There is however, an intention that ICANN's Mission be limited; since there is no limit to what GAC public policy advice may contain, the possibility that ICANN will not be in a position to do things the GAC might ask for cannot be entirely excluded. But I would hope that the GAC would not ask ICANN to act outside its Mission.

Kind Regards,

Malcolm.

Best regards,

Julia

Julia Katja Wolman

DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY

Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk...>

MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH

PPlease consider the environment before printing this email.

Fra:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 24. november 2015 20:09 Til: Silver, Bradley; Mueller, Milton L; Accountability Community; ACCT-Staff Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract

Bradley, I agree that 3.18 and 3.7.7 of the RAA are within the picket fence, and I think several other folks did as well. Also, I think that we did agree to grandfather existing agreements - happy to add as part of the drafting note. But it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to start calling out particular sections of the agreements - does that mean other parts of the agreement that are not called out are automatically suspect? Can we stick with the agreement reached last night? 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: <Silver>, Bradley <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>> Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 1:50 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract

Fine with that tweak as well. I do want to make one suggested change to a drafting note, which is a point of clarity and is consistent with discussion on the call, as well as the back and forth on this list. We very much need to ensure that these restrictions are not going to be used to poke holes in the presumptive validity of provisions in the RAA and RA and PICs, which are supported by the Specs. So I propose:

· The issues identified in Specifications 1 and 11to the Registry Agreement and Specification 4 to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (the so-called "Picket Fence"), as well the associated provisions of such agreements (including but not limited to Sections 3.18 and 3.7.7. of the RAA) are intended and understood to be within the scope of ICANN's Mission

Bradley

From:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 12:54 PM To: Mueller, Milton L; Accountability Community; ACCT-Staff Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract

I am fine with "in service of" - just used in furtherance of because that is what the David Post language came around with

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: <Mueller>, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 12:50 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract

Becky: The statement on ICANN's ability to enforce contracts: "in service of" its mission was clearly the most popular and acceptable language; "in furtherance of" was the least popular and acceptable. Please revert to "in service of"

--MM

From:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 12:15 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>; ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract

Based on our call earlier today, I have modified the side-by-side comparison of the Mission Statement (comparing current Bylaws, 2nd Draft Proposal, and proposed 3rd Draft Proposal language) to reflect the 2nd Draft Proposal language plus the contract language as follows:

ICANN shall act strictly in accordance with, and only as reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission. ICANN shall not impose regulations on services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide. ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements with contracted parties in furtherance of its Mission.

I have added the following Note per our discussion:

Note to drafters: In crafting proposed Bylaws language to reflect this Mission Statement, the CCWG wishes the drafters to reflect the following considerations:

The prohibition on the regulation of "content" is not intended to prevent ICANN policies from taking into account the semantic meaning of domain names.

The issues identified in Specification 1 to the Registry Agreement and Specification 4 to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (the so-called "Picket Fence") are intended and understood to be within the scope of ICANN's Mission. A side-by-side comparison of the formulation of the Picket Fence in the respective agreements is attached for reference.

The PDF (as well as the PDF of the Picket Fence language) is attached.

Please note also that I have added a general note to the effect that we expect the the Bylaws drafters may need to modify the Articles of Incorporation to align with the substantive changes to the Bylaws.

Becky 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>

================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. ================================================================= _______________________________________________ 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=jrHJnZg42nwT7z9ZODS-zHHGkYzmM77O-UlelzlU7Hw&s=fEJopFrvZm5Hw_DDXdH7vEYkbEyMXOQLIE_aKP5lk5Q&e=> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 Milton I feel it is fair for us to ask for a professional legal assessment of the impact of these changes. I do not think there should be a problem with that. Clarity would do us all good on this issue as we have done multiple times up to now. regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 11.12.2015 um 16:49 schrieb Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>:

I think the answer to Julia and Jorge's questions about PICs are to be found in the discussion of grandfathering:

"For the avoidance of uncertainty, the language of existing registry agreements and registrar accreditation agreements should be grandfathered. This means that the parties who entered into existing contracts intended (and intend) to be bound by those agreements. It means that neither a contracting party nor anyone else should be able to bring a case that any provisions of such agreements on their face are ultra vires. It does not, however, modify any contracting party's right to challenge the other party¹s interpretation of that language. It does not modify the right of any person or entity materially affected (as defined in the Bylaws) by an action or inaction in violation ICANN¹s Bylaws to seek redress through an IRP. Nor does it modify the scope of ICANN's Mission."

Short answer (IANAL, imho): old PICs are safe, new ones must be subject to mission limitation tests. Which is rather obviously the way it should be, no? Do you Jorge, or does anyone in GAC, really believe that you should be able to use ICANN contracts to make registries do anything governments or any other part of ICANN pleases, regardless of mission limitations? What is the point of having mission limitations then?

If that is what you want, please make it quite clear and explicit so that the public is aware of what you are trying to do.

...

-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 5:19 AM To: jukacz@erst.dk Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract

Dear co-Chairs

to add to Julia's comment below, I feel Becky's answer is fine and appreciated, but such a sensitive issue merits a legal assessment by our lawyers, i.e. whether, and to what extent and/or under what conditions what we know as "PICs" -be it old or new- will be consistent with the new Mission language being proposed.

thanks for your consideration and regards

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 11.12.2015 um 11:11 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>:

Co-Chairs, colleagues,

I am coming back to this issue and my previous question (see below) to get some clarity as this is now an issue being discussed in the GAC. I would therefore kindly ask whether the answer from Becky (below) should be seen as the authoritative one, or if the CCWG has sought a legal opinion on this?

Good weekend to you all!

Best,

Julia

Julia Katja Wolman

DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY

Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>

MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH

P Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Fra: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sendt: 26. november 2015 14:45 Til: Malcolm Hutty; Julia Katja Wolman Cc: Silver, Bradley; Mueller, Milton L; Accountability Community; ACCT-Staff Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract

Julia,

To reiterate, we are clarifying the existing Mission, not changing it. Our clarification does not terminate existing PICs. The GAC continues to be free to offer whatever Advice it likes, including on "sensitive strings" and other public policy issues. ICANN remains obligated to consider that Advice and to attempt to identify mutually acceptable solutions in the event of disagreement in accordance with the Bylaws. As is presently the case, the ICANN Board's final decision on whether to accept GAC Advice and how to implement such Advice must remain consistent with the ICANN Bylaws.

Becky

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: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net<mailto:malcolm@linx.net>> Date: Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 7:52 AM To: Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> Cc: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>> , "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross- community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross- community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct- staff@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract

On 26 Nov 2015, at 06:58, Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> wrote: Dear colleagues,

The discussions on this issue, including the status of the Draft Proposal, have been somewhat challenging to follow. After the last CCWG call 24 November and the discussion on the list with regard to the Mission Statement, the "picket fence" and the termination of the PICs, especially, I would appreciate a clarification (legal?) of what it would mean for GAC's public policy advice, for example à la the advice the GAC has given on "sensitive strings" and the Boards ability to implement and enforce public policy advice from the GAC.

Dear Julia,

There is no intention to limit ICANN's ability to decline to delegate domains containing sensitive strings in accordance with consensus policy (and so, in accordance with GAC advice that a particular string is sensitive).

There is however, an intention that ICANN's Mission be limited; since there is no limit to what GAC public policy advice may contain, the possibility that ICANN will not be in a position to do things the GAC might ask for cannot be entirely excluded. But I would hope that the GAC would not ask ICANN to act outside its Mission.

Kind Regards,

Malcolm.

Best regards,

Julia

Julia Katja Wolman

DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY

Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=ht tp- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw &r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=jrHJnZg42nwT 7z9ZODS-zHHGkYzmM77O-UlelzlU7Hw&s=tDyVvM7- TfYcc88YEgIdUCumzTnuMO_AAVCEXMl4blg&e=>

MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH

PPlease consider the environment before printing this email.

Fra:accountability-cross-community- bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community- bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community- bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 24. november 2015 20:09 Til: Silver, Bradley; Mueller, Milton L; Accountability Community; ACCT-Staff Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract

Bradley, I agree that 3.18 and 3.7.7 of the RAA are within the picket fence, and I think several other folks did as well. Also, I think that we did agree to grandfather existing agreements - happy to add as part of the drafting note. But it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to start calling out particular sections of the agreements - does that mean other parts of the agreement that are not called out are automatically suspect? Can we stick with the agreement reached last night? 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: <Silver>, Bradley <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>> Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 1:50 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross- community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross- community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct- staff@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract

Fine with that tweak as well. I do want to make one suggested change to a drafting note, which is a point of clarity and is consistent with discussion on the call, as well as the back and forth on this list. We very much need to ensure that these restrictions are not going to be used to poke holes in the presumptive validity of provisions in the RAA and RA and PICs, which are supported by the Specs. So I propose:

· The issues identified in Specifications 1 and 11to the Registry Agreement and Specification 4 to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (the so-called "Picket Fence"), as well the associated provisions of such agreements (including but not limited to Sections 3.18 and 3.7.7. of the RAA) are intended and understood to be within the scope of ICANN's Mission

Bradley

From:accountability-cross-community- bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community- bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 12:54 PM To: Mueller, Milton L; Accountability Community; ACCT-Staff Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract

I am fine with "in service of" - just used in furtherance of because that is what the David Post language came around with

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: <Mueller>, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 12:50 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross- community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross- community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct- staff@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract

Becky: The statement on ICANN's ability to enforce contracts: "in service of" its mission was clearly the most popular and acceptable language; "in furtherance of" was the least popular and acceptable. Please revert to "in service of"

--MM

From:accountability-cross-community- bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community- bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 12:15 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross- community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross- community@icann.org>>; ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct- staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract

Based on our call earlier today, I have modified the side-by-side comparison of the Mission Statement (comparing current Bylaws, 2nd Draft Proposal, and proposed 3rd Draft Proposal language) to reflect the 2nd Draft Proposal language plus the contract language as follows:

ICANN shall act strictly in accordance with, and only as reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission. ICANN shall not impose regulations on services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide. ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements with contracted parties in furtherance of its Mission.

I have added the following Note per our discussion:

Note to drafters: In crafting proposed Bylaws language to reflect this Mission Statement, the CCWG wishes the drafters to reflect the following considerations:

The prohibition on the regulation of "content" is not intended to prevent ICANN policies from taking into account the semantic meaning of domain names.

The issues identified in Specification 1 to the Registry Agreement and Specification 4 to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (the so-called "Picket Fence") are intended and understood to be within the scope of ICANN's Mission. A side-by-side comparison of the formulation of the Picket Fence in the respective agreements is attached for reference.

The PDF (as well as the PDF of the Picket Fence language) is attached.

Please note also that I have added a general note to the effect that we expect the the Bylaws drafters may need to modify the Articles of Incorporation to align with the substantive changes to the Bylaws.

Becky 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>

========================================================== ======= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. ========================================================== ======= _______________________________________________ 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=jrHJnZg42nwT7z9ZODS- zHHGkYzmM77O- UlelzlU7Hw&s=fEJopFrvZm5Hw_DDXdH7vEYkbEyMXOQLIE_aKP5lk5Q&e=> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Perhaps the question to counsel needs to be whether any of the existing PICs are inconsistent with the new Mission language being proposed. (Answering this question likely requires a combination of legal analysis and understanding ICANN policy, along with neutrality as to outcome. Also, answering this question may take quite some time, given the number of PICs. Perhaps specific PICs can be nominated as those most likely to cause concern or needing resolution.) If I understand the consequences of the CCWG proposal correctly, this means that (i) any existing PICs that are inconsistent with the new Mission language are being saved only by "grandfathering," and (ii) the same PIC would be prohibited in a Registry Agreement executed after the effective date of the new Mission language. By the same reasoning, any new PIC would need to be judged against the Mission limitations on a case-by-case basis. Greg On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:

Jorge:

...

I feel it is fair for us to ask for a professional legal assessment of

the impact of

...

these changes.

Of course, no problem with that. I am merely saying, to get good output from legal advice, your input has to be clear. So we need to know what question are you trying to answer with legal advice? My understanding is that your question is this:

...

...

...

i.e. whether, and to what extent and/or under what conditions what we know as "PICs" -be it old or new- will be consistent with the new Mission language being proposed.

To me, this is not an entirely clear question, it seems too open-ended. Can a lawyer tell you whether new PICs will be consistent with the mission statement when they don't know what the new PICs will be? I am saying that your question has to distinguish clearly between old and new PICs.

--MM

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

One view would be that, as we are not changing ICANN's Mission, but merely clarifying it, all existing PICs are within the Mission, both before and after. But that may be a naive view (and possibly, an incorrect one). Any judgment that an existing PIC would violate the new Mission language would indicate either (a) there are existing PICs that are outside ICANN's Mission, or (b) the new Mission language is changing ICANN's Mission and not merely clarifying it. Greg On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 12:01 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

Fair point - perhaps it's my English which is limited.

The question is: bearing in mind the new Mission wording and considering what kind of provisions PICs have typically been included so far, to what extent would similar PICs be consistent with the new Mission and/or what key conditions or legal contours would they need to respect specifically to be consistent with the new Mission.

This would help us to assess the impact of the new Mission wording in more clearer terms.

But surely some native speaker with legal training could improve this phrasing a lot...

regards

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

...

Am 11.12.2015 um 17:19 schrieb Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>:

Jorge:

...

I feel it is fair for us to ask for a professional legal assessment of

the impact of

...

these changes.

Of course, no problem with that. I am merely saying, to get good output from legal advice, your input has to be clear. So we need to know what question are you trying to answer with legal advice? My understanding is that your question is this:

...

...

...

i.e. whether, and to what extent and/or under what conditions what we know as "PICs" -be it old or new- will be consistent with the new Mission language being proposed.

To me, this is not an entirely clear question, it seems too open-ended. Can a lawyer tell you whether new PICs will be consistent with the mission statement when they don't know what the new PICs will be? I am saying that your question has to distinguish clearly between old and new PICs.

--MM

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

Dear All, We need to carefully examine Avri,s Comment.' Should the proposed language change the meaning or open any avenue for interpretation then must: 1. Avoid to do it and 2. Not putting the new language under the cover of clarification Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone

On 12 Dec 2015, at 17:27, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

...

On 11-Dec-15 12:13, Greg Shatan wrote: (a) there are existing PICs that are outside ICANN's Mission,

I am sure there are, or at least could be. The conditions that some applicants had to put into their applications to meet requirements such as those for community and geographical and such to restrict access to certain populations could well be interpreted as beyond the scope of the ICANN mission.

...

or (b) the new Mission language is changing ICANN's Mission and not merely clarifying it.

Of course it is changing it. The mission is not only expressed in the negotiated wording, but the interpretations made of those words over the years. By changing the wording we change the basis for interpretation - I expect that was the intent for some among those who wanted to constrain the mission. The negotiations that have been ongoing on the wording seem to me to be intended to change the practical interpretation of the mission. This is not just clarification.

avri

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

Hi Leon, We are happy to try and assist with this but we need more information: 1. When you say “new Mission wording” do you mean the wording as currently reflected in the 3rd proposal or do you also include some language from the email discussion? If the latter, could someone please send us the specific language that is at issue. 2. We will need information on the kind of provisions that PICs have typically included. Could ICANN legal provide that information to us? Kind regards, Holly HOLLY J. GREGORY Partner and Co-Chair Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Sidley Austin LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com/> [http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png]<http://www.sidley.com/> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía [mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx] Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 5:11 PM To: Sidley ICANN CCWG; ICANN-Adler Cc: Accountability Cross Community; ACCT-Staff (acct-staff@icann.org); Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill Subject: Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract Dear Holly, dear Rosemary, This is to certify the following question to have your advice on it: bearing in mind the new Mission wording and considering what kind of provisions PICs have typically been included so far, to what extent would similar PICs be consistent with the new Mission and/or what key conditions or legal contours would they need to respect specifically to be consistent with the new Mission. Please let us know if you need further clarification on the question framing. Best regards, León Inicio del mensaje reenviado: De: <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Fecha: 11 de diciembre de 2015, 11:01:16 a.m. GMT-6 Para: <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract Fair point - perhaps it's my English which is limited. The question is: bearing in mind the new Mission wording and considering what kind of provisions PICs have typically been included so far, to what extent would similar PICs be consistent with the new Mission and/or what key conditions or legal contours would they need to respect specifically to be consistent with the new Mission. This would help us to assess the impact of the new Mission wording in more clearer terms. But surely some native speaker with legal training could improve this phrasing a lot... regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 11.12.2015 um 17:19 schrieb Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>: Jorge: I feel it is fair for us to ask for a professional legal assessment of the impact of these changes. Of course, no problem with that. I am merely saying, to get good output from legal advice, your input has to be clear. So we need to know what question are you trying to answer with legal advice? My understanding is that your question is this: i.e. whether, and to what extent and/or under what conditions what we know as "PICs" -be it old or new- will be consistent with the new Mission language being proposed. To me, this is not an entirely clear question, it seems too open-ended. Can a lawyer tell you whether new PICs will be consistent with the mission statement when they don't know what the new PICs will be? I am saying that your question has to distinguish clearly between old and new PICs. --MM _______________________________________________ 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 **************************************************************************************************** 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. ****************************************************************************************************

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 www.adlercolvin.com _____________________________ 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); 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.

Dear All I forgot two more issue Issue 7 How many more PICs we will receive in future round? And What would be the impact of those future PICs on the potential study, if we agree to do? Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone

On 12 Dec 2015, at 09:23, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

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> 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 www.adlercolvin.com

_____________________________ 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); 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> 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

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. ****************************************************************************************************