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@icann.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@icann.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.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. ****************************************************************************************************
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<http://spp.gatech.edu/> Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org/ From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@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>; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; trang.nguyen@icann.org; 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@icann.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@icann.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.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. ****************************************************************************************************
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-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 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<http://spp.gatech.edu/> Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org/ From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@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@icann.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@icann.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.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. ****************************************************************************************************
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-bounces@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.edu_&d=DQMFAw...> 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=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=vSY4qEFfQeM3_MOt9BqsxTQdh1NcsT6-5RqZdXQjReQ&s=OfTBX8dRLVEfPtfPtAeajH_Q7Xyncu8iKVRZl3vBx44&e=> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@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@icann.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@icann.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.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. ****************************************************************************************************
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 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-bounces@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.edu_&d=DQMFAw...> 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=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=vSY4qEFfQeM3_MOt9BqsxTQdh1NcsT6-5RqZdXQjReQ&s=OfTBX8dRLVEfPtfPtAeajH_Q7Xyncu8iKVRZl3vBx44&e=> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@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@icann.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@icann.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.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. ****************************************************************************************************
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-bounces@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.edu_&d=DQMFAw...> 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=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=vSY4qEFfQeM3_MOt9BqsxTQdh1NcsT6-5RqZdXQjReQ&s=OfTBX8dRLVEfPtfPtAeajH_Q7Xyncu8iKVRZl3vBx44&e=> From:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@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@icann.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@icann.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.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. ****************************************************************************************************
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-bounces@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.edu_&d=DQMFAw...>
Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project
From:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@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 GACs 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@icann.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@icann.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 ICANNs 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 ICANNs 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.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.
****************************************************************************************************
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-bounces@ 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.edu_&d=DQMFAw...>
Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project
From:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@ 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@icann.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.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.
****************************************************************************************************
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-bounces@ 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.edu_&d=DQMFAw...>
Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project
From:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@ 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@icann.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.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.
****************************************************************************************************
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.edu_&d=DQMFAw...>
Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project
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@icann.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.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.
****************************************************************************************************
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 ("GNSO), as appropriate under ICANNs Bylaws and; (b) the Country Code Names Supporting Organization ("ccNSO), as appropriate under ICANNs 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.edu_&d=DQMFAw...>
Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project
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@icann.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.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.
****************************************************************************************************
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 ("GNSO), as appropriate under ICANNs Bylaws and; (b) the Country Code Names Supporting Organization ("ccNSO), as appropriate under ICANNs 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.edu_&d=DQMFAw...>
Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project
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@icann.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.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.
****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
as appropriate under ICANNs 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 ("GNSO), as appropriate under ICANNs Bylaws and; (b) the Country Code Names Supporting Organization ("ccNSO), as appropriate under ICANNs 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.edu_&d=DQMFAw...>
Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project
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@icann.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.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.
****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Unless I am missing something, this change seems fine to me. Chuck Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 7, 2016, at 4:20 PM, Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:
as appropriate under ICANN's 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 ("GNSO"), as appropriate under ICANN's Bylaws and; (b) the Country Code Names Supporting Organization ("ccNSO"), as appropriate under ICANN's 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@ http://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.edu_&d=DQMFAw...> 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=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=vSY4qEFfQeM3_MOt9BqsxTQdh1NcsT6-5RqZdXQjReQ&s=OfTBX8dRLVEfPtfPtAeajH_Q7Xyncu8iKVRZl3vBx44&e=>
From:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce s@ http://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@icann.org>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] P� 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 http://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> http://www.sidley.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sidley.com&d=DQMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=FPQR1Kinldf2JW141QOgAICaJbdCiJtDYLdhqqPGM2A&s=5BeRy1BHtwrvC2TIKe2dYjVBBZajZZqkESlWtHuAYBU&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
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.edu_ &d=DQMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WD DkMr4k&m=vSY4qEFfQeM3_MOt9BqsxTQdh1NcsT6-5RqZdXQjReQ&s=UGPIljPlrovfxu2PtWi 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=62cJF Oifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=vSY4qEFfQeM3_MOt9BqsxTQdh1NcsT6-5 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@icann .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_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdY ahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=FPQR1Kinldf2JW141QOgAICaJbdCiJtDYLdhqqPGM2A&s=5BeRy1BHtwrv 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
I think it would be much more accurate to replace the word "apply" with "consult" or "consult for guidance" First, to "apply" something "as applicable" is awkward and confusing phrasing; second, to apply the GAC principles sure sounds like it's a policy to me. From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 1:52 PM To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; Lindeberg, Elise <elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no>; 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-bounces@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.edu_&d=DQMFAw...> 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=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=vSY4qEFfQeM3_MOt9BqsxTQdh1NcsT6-5RqZdXQjReQ&s=OfTBX8dRLVEfPtfPtAeajH_Q7Xyncu8iKVRZl3vBx44&e=> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@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@icann.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@icann.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.sidley.com&d=DQMFAw&...> [Image removed by sender. 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. ****************************************************************************************************
I also like 'consult' better than 'apply'. Would that satisfy the GAC? Chuck From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 3:38 PM To: Burr, Becky; Gomes, Chuck; Lindeberg, Elise; CWG-Stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement I think it would be much more accurate to replace the word "apply" with "consult" or "consult for guidance" First, to "apply" something "as applicable" is awkward and confusing phrasing; second, to apply the GAC principles sure sounds like it's a policy to me. From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 1:52 PM To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>; 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> 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-bounces@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.edu_&d=DQMFAw...> 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=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=vSY4qEFfQeM3_MOt9BqsxTQdh1NcsT6-5RqZdXQjReQ&s=OfTBX8dRLVEfPtfPtAeajH_Q7Xyncu8iKVRZl3vBx44&e=> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@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@icann.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@icann.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.sidley.com&d=DQMFAw&...> [Image removed by sender. 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. ****************************************************************************************************
That definitely works for me 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 3:40 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 I also like ‘consult’ better than ‘apply’. Would that satisfy the GAC? Chuck From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 3:38 PM To: Burr, Becky; Gomes, Chuck; Lindeberg, Elise; CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement I think it would be much more accurate to replace the word “apply” with “consult” or “consult for guidance” First, to “apply” something “as applicable” is awkward and confusing phrasing; second, to apply the GAC principles sure sounds like it’s a policy to me. From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 1:52 PM To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>; 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> 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-bounces@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.edu_&d=DQMFAw...> 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=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=vSY4qEFfQeM3_MOt9BqsxTQdh1NcsT6-5RqZdXQjReQ&s=OfTBX8dRLVEfPtfPtAeajH_Q7Xyncu8iKVRZl3vBx44&e=> From:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@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@icann.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@icann.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.sidley.com&d=DQMFAw&...> [Image removed by sender. 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. ****************************************************************************************************
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@Nkom.no>; Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; trang.nguyen@icann.org; 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@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@icann.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@icann.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.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. ****************************************************************************************************
Here is my opinion on this. As Milton pointed out, 'where applicable' is terribly vague. On the other hand 1.3 makes it very clear. The clearer we can be the easier it will be for PTI to do its job. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 11:16 AM To: Becky.Burr@neustar.biz; elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no; trang.nguyen@icann.org; CWG-Stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [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@Nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no>>; Cancio Jorge BAKOM <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> 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@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@icann.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@icann.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.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. ****************************************************************************************************
participants (7)
-
Burr, Becky -
Christopher Disspain -
Gomes, Chuck -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Mueller, Milton L -
Paul M Kane - CWG -
Trang Nguyen