Hi, I totally don't care about this, but in the definitions there's this: “Delegation” refers to the process by which the operator of the IANA Naming Function initially assigns management responsibility or assigns previously assigned responsibility (after a revocation) for the management of a ccTLD, as further defined in the RFC 1591 as interpreted by the FOI. As a DNS geek, that strikes me as incorrect. Delegation is very simple: it's the act of putting NS records in the parent zone (in this case the root) to the authoritative nameservers for the child zone. I could do delegation in anvilwalrusden.com to some other namespace (example.anvilwalrusden.com). It would certainly have nothing to do with either ICANN or ccTLDs. The "management responsibility" stuff all sounds to me like what some of us have come to call "allocation". Anyway, I don't know that this ramifies, but I thought I ought to point it out. A On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 03:48:58AM +0000, Trang Nguyen wrote:
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<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.
****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________ Cwg-client mailing list Cwg-client@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com