FW: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement

Sept. 8, 2016

      Below please find the final language regarding Section 4.7 of the Names
Agreement, just adopted by the CWG in their call (still on-going).

Best Regards,
/Stephen

-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Trang Nguyen
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 10:27 AM
To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk>; Christopher Disspain
<chris@disspain.id.au>
Cc: cwg-client@icann.org; CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement

ICANN is fine with the proposed edits to Section 4.7 of the Naming Function
Agreement.

Contractor shall apply the policies for the Root Zone Management component
of the IANA Naming Function that have been defined or after the date of this
Agreement are further defined, by:

(a) the Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO²), as appropriate under
ICANN¹s Bylaws and;
(b) the Country Code Names Supporting Organization ("ccNSO²), as appropriate
under ICANN¹s Bylaws and;
(c) RFC 1591: /Domain Name System Structure and Delegation/ ("RFC 1591²) as
interpreted by the Framework of Interpretation of Current Policies and
Guidelines Pertaining to the Delegation and Redelegation of Country-Code Top
Level Domain Names, dated October 2014 ("FOI²).

In addition to these policies, Contractor shall, where applicable, consult
the 2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and Guidelines for the
Delegation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains ("GAC 2005
ccTLD Principles"). Contractor shall publish documentation pertaining to the
implementation of these policies and principles on the IANA Website.²

A conforming change would be applicable to A.1.d.iii as well.

-----Original Message-----
From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul M Kane - CWG
<paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk>
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 1:19 PM
To: Christopher Disspain <chris@disspain.id.au>
Cc: "CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" <CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement
...
as appropriate under ICANN¹s Bylaws and
Quoting Christopher Disspain <chris@disspain.id.au>:
...
Hi Paul,
What are the actual amendments you are suggesting, please?
Chris
...
On 7 Sep 2016, at 19:53, Paul M Kane - CWG 
<paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk>
wrote:
On reflection and following consultation with colleagues I'd like 
to
make a
few
small amendments to my earlier statement so 4.7 IMHO should read:
"Section 4.7 Responsibility and Respect for Stakeholders. 
Contractor shall apply the policies for the Root Zone Management 
component of the IANA Naming Function that have been defined or 
after the date of this Agreement are further defined, by:
(a) the Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO²), as 
appropriate under ICANN¹s Bylaws and;
(b) the Country Code Names Supporting Organization ("ccNSO²), as 
appropriate under ICANN¹s Bylaws and;
(c) RFC 1591: /Domain Name System Structure and Delegation/ ("RFC
1591")
as interpreted by the Framework of Interpretation of Current 
Policies and Guidelines Pertaining to the Delegation and 
Redelegation of Country-Code Top Level Domain Names, dated October 2014
("FOI").
In addition to these policies, Contractor shall, where applicable, 
consult the 2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and 
Guidelines for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code 
Top Level Domains ("GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles"). Contractor shall 
publish documentation pertaining to the implementation of these 
policies and principles on the IANA Website."
I hope members of the CWG will find this minor correction 
acceptable
and
suitable for adoption tomorrow.
Best
Paul
correct my earlier
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
...
I flagged this because I suspected there might be a concern and I
didn't
want
there to be any late surprises that might cause unnecessary delays.
At
the
same time, let me be clear that this is not my issue so I look
forward to
seeing the resolution.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 9:28 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Burr, Becky; Mueller, Milton L; Lindeberg, Elise; 
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function 
Agreement
Thanks Chuck (and apologies all once again for being late to the
call)
I think we need to qualify 4.7 with regard to ccNSO members and
non-members -
ICANN Bylaws respect the diversity of the ccTLD community and it 
is appropriate that the Naming Functions Agreement does too so ... 
I'd
propose:
"Section 4.7 Responsibility and Respect for Stakeholders. 
Contractor
shall
apply the policies for the Root Zone Management component of the 
IANA
Naming
Function that have been defined or after the date of this 
Agreement
are
further defined, by:
(a) the Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO") and
(b) the Country Code Names Supporting Organization ("ccNSO") in so
far as
they apply to ccNSO members, and;
(c) RFC 1591: /Domain Name System Structure and Delegation/ ("RFC
1591")
as
interpreted by the Framework of Interpretation of Current Policies
and
Guidelines Pertaining to the Delegation and Redelegation of
Country-Code
Top
Level Domain Names, dated October 2014 ("FOI").
In addition to these policies, Contractor shall, where applicable,
consult
the
2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and Guidelines for
the
Delegation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains 
("GAC
2005
ccTLD Principles"). Contractor shall publish documentation
pertaining to
the
implementation of these policies and principles on the IANA Website."
Best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
...
Paul,
In light of your concerns, are you okay with the following from 
the paragraph
below:  "Contractor shall apply the policies for the Root Zone 
Management component of the IANA Naming Function that have been 
defined or after the date of this Agreement are further defined, 
by
(a) . . . and the Country Code Names Supporting Organization
("ccNSO")"?
" Section 4.7 Responsibility and Respect for Stakeholders.
Contractor
shall apply the policies for the Root Zone Management component 
of
the
IANA Naming Function that have been defined or after the date of
this
Agreement are further defined, by (a) the Generic Names 
Supporting Organization ("GNSO") and the Country Code Names 
Supporting Organization ("ccNSO"), and (b) RFC
1591: /Domain Name System Structure and Delegation/ ("RFC 1591") 
as interpreted by the Framework of Interpretation of Current 
Policies
and
Guidelines Pertaining to the Delegation and Redelegation of 
Country-Code Top Level Domain Names, dated October 2014 ("FOI").
In
addition to these policies, Contractor shall, where applicable, 
consult the 2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and 
Guidelines for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code
Top
Level Domains ("GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles"). Contractor shall
publish
documentation pertaining to the implementation of these policies 
and
principles on the IANA Website."
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 5:40 PM
To: Burr, Becky
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Mueller, Milton L; Lindeberg, Elise; 
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function
Agreement
Just for clarity....  non-ccNSO members are not bound or impacted
by
ICANN Policies and this is respected in ICANN's own Bylaws.  Also 
current ccNSO members who disagree with ICANN Policy can cease
their
membership and not be
impacted: 
From ICANN's Bylaws.....
Subject to clause 4(11), ICANN policies shall apply to ccNSO
members
by virtue of their membership to the extent, and only to the
extent,
that the policies (a) only address issues that are within scope 
of
the
ccNSO according to Article IX, Section 6 and Annex C; (b) have 
been developed through the ccPDP as described in Section 6 of 
this
Article,
and (c) have been recommended as such by the ccNSO to the Board,
and
(d) are adopted by the Board as policies, provided that such
policies
do not conflict with the law applicable to the ccTLD manager 
which
shall,
at all times, remain paramount.
In addition, such policies shall apply to ICANN in its activities 
concerning ccTLDs.
(ARTICLE IX, Section 4, Clause 10).
Most non-ccNSO ccTLDs are content for the ccNSO to develop 
Polices that best serve their interest and provided that is 
respected (and there is no attempt to burden non-ccNSO ccTLDs) I 
learn from ccNSO members that they are content with the amended 
text proposed and adopted during the CWG call on the 1st September.
(sorry for being late to the call and I hope this enables us to 
move
forward)
Best
Paul
Quoting "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:
...
I will defer to Paul on that
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: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes
<cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>
Date: Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 2:23 PM
To: Becky Burr
<becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>,
"Mueller, Milton L" 
<milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>,
"Lindeberg, Elise"
<elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no>>,
"cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>"
<cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>>
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function 
Agreement
This looks fine to me Becky but I do have a totally different 
question.  Will the non-ccNSO member ccTLD registries have 
problem with the inclusion of ccNSO developed policies?  As you 
know, I am out of my realm here but I am aware of the concerns 
Paul Kane has been expressing and am curious if they are comfortable
with this.
Chuck
From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 1:52 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Mueller, Milton L; Lindeberg, Elise; 
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function 
Agreement
How about the following:
Section 4.7 Responsibility and Respect for Stakeholders.
Contractor
shall apply the policies for the Root Zone Management component 
of the IANA Naming Function that have been defined, or after the 
date of this Agreement are further defined, by (a) the Generic 
Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO") and the Country Code 
Names Supporting Organization ("ccNSO"), and (b) RFC
1591: /Domain Name System Structure and Delegation/ ("RFC 1591")
as
interpreted by the Framework of Interpretation of Current 
Policies and Guidelines Pertaining to the Delegation and 
Redelegation of Country-Code Top Level Domain Names, dated October
2014 ("FOI").
In
addition to these policies, Contractor shall, where applicable, 
apply the 2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and 
Guidelines for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code
Top
Level Domains ("GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles"). Contractor shall 
publish documentation pertaining to the implementation of these 
policies and principles on the
IANA Website.
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: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes
<cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>
Date: Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 1:49 PM
To: "Mueller, Milton L"
<milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>,
Becky Burr 
<becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>,
"Lindeberg, Elise"
<elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no>>,
"cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>"
<cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>>
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function 
Agreement
It definitely should not be listed as a policy.  Any reference 
to them would have to avoid any implication that they are policy.
Chuck
From:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce
...
s@ icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On 
Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 11:14 AM
To: Burr, Becky; Lindeberg, Elise; 
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function 
Agreement
It is important. I think the best solution would be to remove 
the GAC principles from the list of applicable policies, since 
it is
not
an ICANN policy
Dr. Milton L Mueller
Professor, School of Public
Policy<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__spp.gatech.e
du_ 
&d=DQMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP
8WD 
DkMr4k&m=vSY4qEFfQeM3_MOt9BqsxTQdh1NcsT6-5RqZdXQjReQ&s=UGPIljPlrovfxu2P
tWi
IFwEdA6lWGvBi9GEiDFAeFaM&e=>
...
...
...
...
...
Georgia Institute of Technology
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url
?u= 
http-3A__internetgovernance.org_&d=DQMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62
cJF
Oifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=vSY4qEFfQeM3_MOt9BqsxTQdh1NcsT
6-5 RqZdXQjReQ&s=OfTBX8dRLVEfPtfPtAeajH_Q7Xyncu8iKVRZl3vBx44&e=>
...
...
...
...
...
From:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce
...
s@ icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On 
Behalf Of Burr, Becky
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 11:08 AM
To: Lindeberg, Elise
<elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no>>;
Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>;
trang.nguyen@icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>;
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function 
Agreement
I want to step back and explain why this change was offered and
why
it is important.  There is a fundamental problem with the
reference
to the GAC Principles in Section 4.7 of the Naming Functions
Agreement.
Section 4.7 lists the "policies" that IANA is required to apply.
Simply put, the GAC Principles are important GAC Advice - but 
they are not ICANN policy.  They have never been considered by 
any of
the
policy development bodies authorized in the ICANN Bylaws, and 
they have not been adopted by the ICANN Board.  The ccTLD 
participants who offered the revised wording attempted to 
address the problem adding a clear
link back to the GAC's own language in Section 1.3.
Alternatively, you could simply remove the GAC Principles from 
the list of applicable "policies."
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: <Lindeberg>, Elise
<elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no>>
Date: Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 9:33 AM
To: 
"Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>"
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>
>, "trang.nguyen@icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>"
<trang.nguyen@icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>>,
"cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>"
<cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function 
Agreement
+1, Jorge
Elise
Fra:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@ic
ann .org>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]
...
...
...
...
...
På vegne av
Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>
Sendt: 1. september 2016 09:21
Til: trang.nguyen@icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>;
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>
Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function 
Agreement
Thanks for this info.
May we be informed why the solution offered to the discussion on
4.7. 
(how to best refer to the 2005 GAC Principles) apparently 
ignores the comments made by several members and participants of 
this
group,
while it takes up the suggestions made by other participants?
Thanks and regards
Jorge
Von:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces
...
@i cann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] Im 
Auftrag von Trang Nguyen
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. September 2016 05:49
An: CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>
Betreff: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] Naming Function 
Agreement
All,
Forwarding email from Sidley regarding the the Naming Function 
Agreement for your review.
Best,
Trang
From:
<cwg-client-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org>>
...
on
behalf of "Hofheimer, Joshua T."
<jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>>
Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:32 PM
To: Client <cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>>,
"jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>"
<jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>, 'Lise
Fuhr'
<lise.fuhr@difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>>
Subject: [client com] Naming Function Agreement
Dear Client Committee,
Attached please find a revised draft of the Naming Function 
Agreement, marked against the version ICANN put out for public 
comment.  This draft reflects the negotiation of various items 
between ICANN and Sidley, as well as ICANN's response to the 
comments provided previously by Paul Kane, Becky Burr and other
CWG
participants.  ICANN has prepared an chart reflecting a number 
of items for which it is seeking confirmation from the CWG 
Client Committee that the particular item may be considered closed
out.
Although the chart appears lengthy,
that is merely because it contains the historical context of
discussion for each item.   ICANN plans to review these items on
the
call
tomorrow, and for our part, Sidley has no further edits to 
request if the CWG is satisfied with ICANN's proposed handling 
of the matters on the
chart.
Thank you,
Josh
JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER
Partner
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
+1 650 565 7561 (PA direct)
+1 213 896 6061 (LA direct)
+1 323 708 2405 (Cell)
jhofheimer@sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>
www.sidley.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.
sid 
ley.com&d=DQMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmr
xdY 
ahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=FPQR1Kinldf2JW141QOgAICaJbdCiJtDYLdhqqPGM2A&s=5BeRy1BHt
wrv
C2TIKe2dYjVBBZajZZqkESlWtHuAYBU&e=>
...
...
...
...
...
[SIDLEY]
***********************************************************************
***
**************************
...
...
...
...
...
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.
***********************************************************************
***
**************************
...
...
...
...
...
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Stephen Deerhake

Burr, Becky

tags

participants (2)