FW: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Naming Function Agreement Review document
Uh oh 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: Yuko Green <yuko.green@icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org>> Date: Friday, August 26, 2016 at 12:56 PM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Naming Function Agreement Review document Dear Elise, Thank you for your comment. I am forwarding this to the correct CWG mail list. Regards, Yuko From: Lindeberg, Elise [mailto:elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no] Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 6:29 AM To: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>; Yuko Green <yuko.green@icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org>> Subject: Naming Function Agreement Review document Dear Yuko Regarding the comments made by Paul Kane on section 4,7 - n/a in the Naming Function Agreement Review document. - Section 4.7 and subsequent is formulated as a general reference to relevant and equivalent policies that must be considered by the contractor. Special reference to section 1.3 , - and the “where applicable” in connection with the GAC principles in section 4.7 and subsequent is unbalanced in this context - the contractor will have to consider and substantiate the relevance of all mentioned/listed policies in its decisions and actions. So, in short form - I don’t agree with the adding of “”were applicable” or special reference to any subsection of the referenced documents such as section 1.3 of the GAC principles. 4.7 2. The reference to the GAC Principles should read: “Where applicable in accordance with Section 1.3 thereof, the 2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and Guidelines for the Delgation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains (“GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles”). We’d like to understand more about the need for specific reference to Section 1.3. We are interested in accommodating this request, but need a bit more information. ICANN would like more information regarding the need for specific reference to Section 1.3. n/a Any subsequent reference to the GAC Principles should read, “where applicable in accordance with Section 1.3 thereof, the GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles.” See above. ICANN would like more information regarding the need for specific reference to Section 1.3. Elise Lindeberg Senior Legal Adviser Norwegian GAC representative Norwegian Communications Authority Dir. +47 22 824607 Mob. +47 90190947 ekl@nkom.no<mailto:ekl@nkom.no>
They want us to sue? On 26/08/16 20:56, Burr, Becky wrote:
Uh oh
*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: Yuko Green <yuko.green@icann.org <mailto:yuko.green@icann.org>> Date: Friday, August 26, 2016 at 12:56 PM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Naming Function Agreement Review document
Dear Elise,
Thank you for your comment. I am forwarding this to the correct CWG mail list.
Regards,
Yuko
*From:*Lindeberg, Elise [mailto:elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no] *Sent:* Friday, August 26, 2016 6:29 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>; Yuko Green <yuko.green@icann.org <mailto:yuko.green@icann.org>> *Subject:* Naming Function Agreement Review document
Dear Yuko
Regarding the comments made by Paul Kane on section 4,7 - n/a in the Naming Function Agreement Review document.
- Section 4.7 and subsequent is formulated as a general reference to relevant and equivalent policies that must be considered by the contractor. Special reference to _section 1.3_ , - and the _“where applicable”_ in connection with the GAC principles in section 4.7 and subsequent is unbalanced in this context - the contractor will have to consider and substantiate the relevance of all mentioned/listed policies in its decisions and actions. So, in short form - I don’t agree with the adding of “”were applicable” or special reference to any subsection of the referenced documents such as section 1.3 of the GAC principles.__
4.7
2. The reference to the GAC Principles should read: “Where applicable in accordance with Section 1.3 thereof, the 2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and Guidelines for the Delgation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains (“GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles”).
We’d like to understand more about the need for specific reference to Section 1.3. We are interested in accommodating this request, but need a bit more information.
ICANN would like more information regarding the need for specific reference to Section 1.3.
n/a
Any subsequent reference to the GAC Principles should read, “where applicable in accordance with Section 1.3 thereof, the GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles.”
See above.
ICANN would like more information regarding the need for specific reference to Section 1.3.
Elise Lindeberg
Senior Legal Adviser
Norwegian GAC representative
Norwegian Communications Authority
Dir. +47 22 824607 Mob. +47 90190947
ekl@nkom.no <mailto:ekl@nkom.no>
Elise Lindeberg argues that "Section 4.7 and subsequent is formulated as a general reference to relevant and equivalent policies that must be considered by the contractor." She falsely equates the GAC 2005 Principles with the Framework of Interpretation. The GAC 2005 Principles ARE NOT ICANN Policy. If GAC had wanted that, then they should have forwarded them to the Board as a consensus recommendation to force the Board to enter into negotiation with GAC on them, as per the Bylaws. They did not do that. On the other hand, the Framework of Interpretation Final Report IS ICANN Policy, having been adopted by the ICANN Board at the recommendation of the ccNSO Council. Elise is trying to win the day with an "Apples - Oranges" comparison. The GAC 2005 Principles and the FOI are NOT "equivalent" policies. That is not my opinion; that is fact. If Section 4.7 stands as written, and the Names contract goes to the Board with the current language rather than the proposed language of "Where applicable in accordance with Section 1.3 thereof, the 2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and Guidelines for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains ("GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles")", then ICANN/GAC will have succeeded in getting the GAC Principles enshrined as de facto ICANN Policy, when in fact they ARE NOT ICANN policy. I strongly encourage my fellow Council members to step back and seriously consider the implications of this. This is nothing less than an attempt to implement a backdoor change to fundamental ICANN policy via its being embedded into a contract. Additionally, it will alter the fundamental relationship between the ccTLD Community and ICANN as it will cast much of the FOI into doubt, and potentially interject Governments into nearly every facet of ccTLD Administration. Regardless of your ccTLD's relationship with your Government, I sincerely doubt you would welcome the confusion and uncertainty that the inclusion of the GAC 2005 Principles into the Names contract will bring in the future. Best Regards, Stephen Deerhake AS Domain Registry (.as) sdeerhake@nic.as From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 3:57 PM To: 'ccnso-council@icann. org' <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] FW: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Naming Function Agreement Review document Uh oh 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 / <http://www.neustar.biz> neustar.biz From: Yuko Green <yuko.green@icann.org <mailto:yuko.green@icann.org> > Date: Friday, August 26, 2016 at 12:56 PM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> " <cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Naming Function Agreement Review document Dear Elise, Thank you for your comment. I am forwarding this to the correct CWG mail list. Regards, Yuko From: Lindeberg, Elise [mailto:elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no] Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 6:29 AM To: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> ; Yuko Green <yuko.green@icann.org <mailto:yuko.green@icann.org> > Subject: Naming Function Agreement Review document Dear Yuko Regarding the comments made by Paul Kane on section 4,7 - n/a in the Naming Function Agreement Review document. - Section 4.7 and subsequent is formulated as a general reference to relevant and equivalent policies that must be considered by the contractor. Special reference to section 1.3 , - and the "where applicable" in connection with the GAC principles in section 4.7 and subsequent is unbalanced in this context - the contractor will have to consider and substantiate the relevance of all mentioned/listed policies in its decisions and actions. So, in short form - I don't agree with the adding of ""were applicable" or special reference to any subsection of the referenced documents such as section 1.3 of the GAC principles. 4.7 2. The reference to the GAC Principles should read: "Where applicable in accordance with Section 1.3 thereof, the 2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and Guidelines for the Delgation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains ("GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles"). We'd like to understand more about the need for specific reference to Section 1.3. We are interested in accommodating this request, but need a bit more information. ICANN would like more information regarding the need for specific reference to Section 1.3. n/a Any subsequent reference to the GAC Principles should read, "where applicable in accordance with Section 1.3 thereof, the GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles." See above. ICANN would like more information regarding the need for specific reference to Section 1.3. Elise Lindeberg Senior Legal Adviser Norwegian GAC representative Norwegian Communications Authority Dir. +47 22 824607 Mob. +47 90190947 ekl@nkom.no <mailto:ekl@nkom.no>
let’s try to be strategic here. I would like to identify a friendly government to say something like this: We are unclear why the government of Norway objects to this description. RFC 1591 is established policy that applies, at a minimum, to all ccTLDs created since its publication in 1994. The GAC Principles, on the other hand, apply where the relevant government and ccTLD operator have agreed that they apply. As the GAC explicitly stated in Section 1.3 of the Principles: "These principles ... are not intended to be binding and need both Governments and Registries voluntarily to agree to apply them within their legal framework. If either the Government or the Registry decide not to adopt the principles, this cannot be held against the Registry, and the Registry still has a valid existence." Thus, while IANA must apply RFC 1591 as interpreted in the FOI to all delegation, revocation, and transfer cases (subject to the operator’s showing that the RFC doesn’t apply), IANA may only apply the GAC Principles in the subset of cases where, by the very terms of the Principles, they apply. 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: "SDeerhake@nic.as<mailto:SDeerhake@nic.as>" <SDeerhake@nic.as<mailto:SDeerhake@nic.as>> Organization: AS Domain Registry Reply-To: "SDeerhake@nic.as<mailto:SDeerhake@nic.as>" <SDeerhake@nic.as<mailto:SDeerhake@nic.as>> Date: Friday, August 26, 2016 at 4:35 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, "'ccnso-council@icann. org'" <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Naming Function Agreement Review document Elise Lindeberg argues that “Section 4.7 and subsequent is formulated as a general reference to relevant and equivalent policies that must be considered by the contractor.” She falsely equates the GAC 2005 Principles with the Framework of Interpretation. The GAC 2005 Principles ARE NOT ICANN Policy. If GAC had wanted that, then they should have forwarded them to the Board as a consensus recommendation to force the Board to enter into negotiation with GAC on them, as per the Bylaws. They did not do that. On the other hand, the Framework of Interpretation Final Report IS ICANN Policy, having been adopted by the ICANN Board at the recommendation of the ccNSO Council. Elise is trying to win the day with an “Apples – Oranges” comparison. The GAC 2005 Principles and the FOI are NOT “equivalent” policies. That is not my opinion; that is fact. If Section 4.7 stands as written, and the Names contract goes to the Board with the current language rather than the proposed language of “Where applicable in accordance with Section 1.3 thereof, the 2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and Guidelines for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains (“GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles”)”, then ICANN/GAC will have succeeded in getting the GAC Principles enshrined as de facto ICANN Policy, when in fact they ARE NOT ICANN policy. I strongly encourage my fellow Council members to step back and seriously consider the implications of this. This is nothing less than an attempt to implement a backdoor change to fundamental ICANN policy via its being embedded into a contract. Additionally, it will alter the fundamental relationship between the ccTLD Community and ICANN as it will cast much of the FOI into doubt, and potentially interject Governments into nearly every facet of ccTLD Administration. Regardless of your ccTLD’s relationship with your Government, I sincerely doubt you would welcome the confusion and uncertainty that the inclusion of the GAC 2005 Principles into the Names contract will bring in the future. Best Regards, Stephen Deerhake AS Domain Registry (.as) sdeerhake@nic.as<mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org> [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 3:57 PM To: 'ccnso-council@icann. org' <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: [ccnso-council] FW: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Naming Function Agreement Review document Uh oh 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: Yuko Green <yuko.green@icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org>> Date: Friday, August 26, 2016 at 12:56 PM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Naming Function Agreement Review document Dear Elise, Thank you for your comment. I am forwarding this to the correct CWG mail list. Regards, Yuko From: Lindeberg, Elise [mailto:elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no] Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 6:29 AM To: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>; Yuko Green <yuko.green@icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org>> Subject: Naming Function Agreement Review document Dear Yuko Regarding the comments made by Paul Kane on section 4,7 - n/a in the Naming Function Agreement Review document. - Section 4.7 and subsequent is formulated as a general reference to relevant and equivalent policies that must be considered by the contractor. Special reference to section 1.3 , - and the “where applicable” in connection with the GAC principles in section 4.7 and subsequent is unbalanced in this context - the contractor will have to consider and substantiate the relevance of all mentioned/listed policies in its decisions and actions. So, in short form - I don’t agree with the adding of “”were applicable” or special reference to any subsection of the referenced documents such as section 1.3 of the GAC principles. 4.7 2. The reference to the GAC Principles should read: “Where applicable in accordance with Section 1.3 thereof, the 2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and Guidelines for the Delgation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains (“GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles”). We’d like to understand more about the need for specific reference to Section 1.3. We are interested in accommodating this request, but need a bit more information. ICANN would like more information regarding the need for specific reference to Section 1.3. n/a Any subsequent reference to the GAC Principles should read, “where applicable in accordance with Section 1.3 thereof, the GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles.” See above. ICANN would like more information regarding the need for specific reference to Section 1.3. Elise Lindeberg Senior Legal Adviser Norwegian GAC representative Norwegian Communications Authority Dir. +47 22 824607 Mob. +47 90190947 ekl@nkom.no<mailto:ekl@nkom.no>
participants (3)
-
Burr, Becky -
Nigel Roberts -
Stephen Deerhake