September 2016 - CWG-Stewardship

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] Naming Function Agreement
by Trang Nguyen Sept. 1, 2016

Sept. 1, 2016

All, Attached is an updated table of issues, with the topic of specific reference to Section 1.3 of the 2005 GAC Principles added for discussion. Best, Trang From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:48 PM To: "CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [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(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>> Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:32 PM To: Client <cwg-client(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>>, "jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>" <jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>, 'Lise Fuhr' <lise.fuhr(a)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(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com> [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. ****************************************************************************************************

1 0

FW: Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX
by Yuko Green Sept. 1, 2016

Sept. 1, 2016

Dear CWG-Stewardship, I am forwarding this e-mail from Sidley regarding the signatory for the IANA IPR community agreement. Regards, Yuko From: cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Hofheimer, Joshua T. Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 9:06 PM To: Client <cwg-client(a)icann.org>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>; jrobinson(a)afilias.info; 'Lise Fuhr' <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk> Subject: [client com] Letter of Instruction from CWG to ICANN re Community Agreement.DOCX Dear Client Committee, Attached is a draft letter of instruction from the “Names Community” to ICANN regarding it acting as the signatory to the Community Agreement. Per the instruction from CWG, namely that we pursue Scenario 1 from the prior Sidley memo, we have drafted this request to come from the CWG co-chairs, and look to Greg Shatan to help with the description of the “Names Community”. We look forward to discussing on our call on Thursday. Cheers, 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(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com> [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. ****************************************************************************************************

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement
by Burr, Becky Sept. 1, 2016

Sept. 1, 2016

I understand that deletion would be problematic from the GAC’s perspective, which is why we offered the alternative language. But I disagree with your point on the “policy” issue. All of the other references reflect either formal ICANN policy (RFC 1591 and the FOI) and formal ICANN policy processes. I could live with something that removed the GAC principles from the “policy” list and added a separate reference to the GAC Principles where applicable by its terms. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: "Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Date: Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 11:16 AM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, "elise.lindeberg(a)Nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no>" <elise.lindeberg(a)Nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no>>, "trang.nguyen(a)icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>" <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: AW: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement I don’t think that would be very helpful. In addition, I don’t think that 4.7 is restricted to formal “policies” as such (those are covered under (a) as I read the section) , but also to important elements developed by parts of the community in this important environment that affects ICANN/IANA, ccTLDs, communities and Governments. As a fellow lawyer I still do not understand why the specific reference to 1.3 of the GAC Principles is needed, when the wording already says that they should be applied “where applicable”. Thanks and regards Jorge Von: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. September 2016 17:08 An: Lindeberg, Elise <elise.lindeberg(a)Nkom.no<mailto:deberg@Nkom.no>>; Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>; trang.nguyen(a)icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>; CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> Betreff: 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(a)Nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no>> Date: Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 9:33 AM To: "Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>, "trang.nguyen(a)icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>" <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship(a)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@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sendt: 1. september 2016 09:21 Til: trang.nguyen(a)icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>; CWG-Stewardship(a)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@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Trang Nguyen Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. September 2016 05:49 An: CWG-Stewardship(a)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(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>> Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:32 PM To: Client <cwg-client(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>>, "jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>" <jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>, 'Lise Fuhr' <lise.fuhr(a)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(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sidley.com&d=DQMFAw…> [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. ****************************************************************************************************

2 1

FW: [client com] Naming Function Agreement
by Trang Nguyen Sept. 1, 2016

Sept. 1, 2016

All, Forwarding email from Sidley regarding the the Naming Function Agreement for your review. Best, Trang From: <cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>> Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:32 PM To: Client <cwg-client(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>>, "jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>" <jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>, 'Lise Fuhr' <lise.fuhr(a)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(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com> [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. ****************************************************************************************************

5 4