authorization function for ccTLDs
I have some questions regarding this: "The CWG is considering replacing the authorization role, at least with regard to ccTLDs, with a written opinion from counsel (independent of ICANN) that each delegation and re-delegation request meets the policy requirements cited in the publicly posted reports." Where would this counsel come from? Whose counsel is it if it is independent of ICANN and ICANN is supplying the IANA service? Since most of the policy requirements related to ccTLD delegation/redelegation are not laws, but things like RFC 1591, on what basis is the counsel's opinion made? Precedent? Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
Milton to understand better your message and position: for you exactly what is the legal status of a cctld ? Erick
El 2/12/2014, a las 10:16, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> escribió:
I have some questions regarding this:
"The CWG is considering replacing the authorization role, at least with regard to ccTLDs, with a written opinion from counsel (independent of ICANN) that each delegation and re-delegation request meets the policy requirements cited in the publicly posted reports."
Where would this counsel come from? Whose counsel is it if it is independent of ICANN and ICANN is supplying the IANA service? Since most of the policy requirements related to ccTLD delegation/redelegation are not laws, but things like RFC 1591, on what basis is the counsel's opinion made? Precedent?
Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Milton Before you respond to Erick - I'll just say add that, for example, the ccNSO FOIWG worked on interpretation of RFC 1591 and other IANA related policy guidelines. http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-07oct14-en.pdf My understanding is that bodies like the ccNSO or group of ccTLDs are there to develop policies regarding the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs. It's my personal view that it could potentially form such a council in future and give opinions. (independent of ICANN board). Desiree -- On 2 Dec 2014, at 15:30, Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com> wrote:
Milton to understand better your message and position: for you exactly what is the legal status of a cctld ? Erick
El 2/12/2014, a las 10:16, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> escribió:
I have some questions regarding this:
"The CWG is considering replacing the authorization role, at least with regard to ccTLDs, with a written opinion from counsel (independent of ICANN) that each delegation and re-delegation request meets the policy requirements cited in the publicly posted reports."
Where would this counsel come from? Whose counsel is it if it is independent of ICANN and ICANN is supplying the IANA service? Since most of the policy requirements related to ccTLD delegation/redelegation are not laws, but things like RFC 1591, on what basis is the counsel's opinion made? Precedent?
Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
_______________________________________________ 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
Desiree: So, according to you, the lawyer (counsel) who authorizes delegations/redelegations would be provided by the ccNSO? Or from some other "group of ccTLDs"? what if the ccNSO lawyer had one opinion and the lawyer provided by another group had a different opinion? Not criticizing, just trying to understand what is being proposed. Erick: My opinion of the legal status of a ccTLD is not relevant to answering those questions. I repeat: I am not criticizing the proposal, I am just trying to understand what is being proposed. From: Desiree Miloshevic [mailto:dmiloshevic@afilias.info] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:51 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: CWG Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs Milton Before you respond to Erick - I'll just say add that, for example, the ccNSO FOIWG worked on interpretation of RFC 1591 and other IANA related policy guidelines. http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-07oct14-en.pdf My understanding is that bodies like the ccNSO or group of ccTLDs are there to develop policies regarding the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs. It's my personal view that it could potentially form such a council in future and give opinions. (independent of ICANN board). Desiree -- On 2 Dec 2014, at 15:30, Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com<mailto:eiriarte@iriartelaw.com>> wrote: Milton to understand better your message and position: for you exactly what is the legal status of a cctld ? Erick El 2/12/2014, a las 10:16, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> escribió: I have some questions regarding this: "The CWG is considering replacing the authorization role, at least with regard to ccTLDs, with a written opinion from counsel (independent of ICANN) that each delegation and re-delegation request meets the policy requirements cited in the publicly posted reports." Where would this counsel come from? Whose counsel is it if it is independent of ICANN and ICANN is supplying the IANA service? Since most of the policy requirements related to ccTLD delegation/redelegation are not laws, but things like RFC 1591, on what basis is the counsel's opinion made? Precedent? Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear Milton almost is important to understand what is the basis of your comment, but is your decision share with us your opinion. Yours, Erick
El 2/12/2014, a las 12:00, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> escribió:
Desiree: So, according to you, the lawyer (counsel) who authorizes delegations/redelegations would be provided by the ccNSO? Or from some other “group of ccTLDs”? what if the ccNSO lawyer had one opinion and the lawyer provided by another group had a different opinion? Not criticizing, just trying to understand what is being proposed.
Erick: My opinion of the legal status of a ccTLD is not relevant to answering those questions. I repeat: I am not criticizing the proposal, I am just trying to understand what is being proposed.
From: Desiree Miloshevic [mailto:dmiloshevic@afilias.info <mailto:dmiloshevic@afilias.info>] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:51 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: CWG Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs
Milton
Before you respond to Erick - I'll just say add that, for example, the ccNSO FOIWG worked on interpretation of RFC 1591 and other IANA related policy guidelines. http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-07oct14-en.pdf <http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-07oct14-en.pdf>
My understanding is that bodies like the ccNSO or group of ccTLDs are there to develop policies regarding the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs. It's my personal view that it could potentially form such a council in future and give opinions. (independent of ICANN board).
Desiree --
On 2 Dec 2014, at 15:30, Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com <mailto:eiriarte@iriartelaw.com>> wrote:
Milton to understand better your message and position: for you exactly what is the legal status of a cctld ? Erick
El 2/12/2014, a las 10:16, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu <mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> escribió:
I have some questions regarding this:
"The CWG is considering replacing the authorization role, at least with regard to ccTLDs, with a written opinion from counsel (independent of ICANN) that each delegation and re-delegation request meets the policy requirements cited in the publicly posted reports."
Where would this counsel come from? Whose counsel is it if it is independent of ICANN and ICANN is supplying the IANA service? Since most of the policy requirements related to ccTLD delegation/redelegation are not laws, but things like RFC 1591, on what basis is the counsel's opinion made? Precedent?
Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html <http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
Erick Iriarte Área de Derecho de Nuevas Tecnologias IRIARTE & ASOCIADOS Dirección: Miró Quesada 191, of. 510, Lima 01, Perú Telefax: (+511) 2035400 Sitio web: iriartelaw.com Twitter: @ialaw Facebook: facebook.com/ialaw Por favor antes de imprimir piense en nuestro medio ambiente, una hoja puede hacer la diferencia en un bosque. Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest. Declaracion de Confidencialidad El contenido de este mensaje de correo electronico y de sus archivos adjuntos esta(n) dirigido(s) exclusivamente a el(los) destinatario(s) del mismo. Adicionalmente, este mensaje y su contenido pueden ser privilegiados y estar cubiertos por la reserva profesional entre abogado y cliente. Si usted no es el destinatario indicado, o si este mensaje le ha sido enviado por error, queda advertido en el sentido de no leer, divulgar, reproducir, distribuir, diseminar o utilizar este mensaje en forma alguna. La entrega de este mensaje a cualquier persona diferente del(de los) destinatario(s) a quien(es) se ha dirigido no constituye una renuncia de privilegios o confidencialidad. Si usted recibe este mensaje por error, por favor advierta al remitente mediante correo de respuesta; adicionalmente le solicitamos que inmediatamente proceda a suprimir este mensaje y sus archivos adjuntos, si los hubiere. Statement of Confidentiality The contents of this e-mail message and its attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof. In addition, this e-mail transmission may be confidential and it may be subject to privilege protecting communications between attorneys or solicitors and their clients. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this e-mail. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please alert the sender by reply e-mail; we also request that you immediately delete this message and its attachments, if any. Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest.
The ccNSO is the source of delegation/revocation policy, based on multistakeholder processes, consensus, etc. That is very different from making a judgment in any particular case whether the policy is being applied properly. There are also complicated national law and jurisdictional issues that arise in the ccTLD context. As a ccTLD operator and a gTLD operator, I would want the right to challenge any revocation/redel decision on a case by case basis. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz From: Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com<mailto:eiriarte@iriartelaw.com>> Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 at 12:12 PM To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> Cc: CWG Stewardship <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs Dear Milton almost is important to understand what is the basis of your comment, but is your decision share with us your opinion. Yours, Erick El 2/12/2014, a las 12:00, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> escribió: Desiree: So, according to you, the lawyer (counsel) who authorizes delegations/redelegations would be provided by the ccNSO? Or from some other “group of ccTLDs”? what if the ccNSO lawyer had one opinion and the lawyer provided by another group had a different opinion? Not criticizing, just trying to understand what is being proposed. Erick: My opinion of the legal status of a ccTLD is not relevant to answering those questions. I repeat: I am not criticizing the proposal, I am just trying to understand what is being proposed. From: Desiree Miloshevic [mailto:dmiloshevic@afilias.info] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:51 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: CWG Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs Milton Before you respond to Erick - I'll just say add that, for example, the ccNSO FOIWG worked on interpretation of RFC 1591 and other IANA related policy guidelines. http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-07oct14-en.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org_workinggroups_foi-2Dfinal-2D07oct14-2Den.pdf&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=11OyJb_p43oaQCyz7z_kxCYM3eereRRP4QbpFHQRdHE&e=> My understanding is that bodies like the ccNSO or group of ccTLDs are there to develop policies regarding the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs. It's my personal view that it could potentially form such a council in future and give opinions. (independent of ICANN board). Desiree -- On 2 Dec 2014, at 15:30, Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com<mailto:eiriarte@iriartelaw.com>> wrote: Milton to understand better your message and position: for you exactly what is the legal status of a cctld ? Erick El 2/12/2014, a las 10:16, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> escribió: I have some questions regarding this: "The CWG is considering replacing the authorization role, at least with regard to ccTLDs, with a written opinion from counsel (independent of ICANN) that each delegation and re-delegation request meets the policy requirements cited in the publicly posted reports." Where would this counsel come from? Whose counsel is it if it is independent of ICANN and ICANN is supplying the IANA service? Since most of the policy requirements related to ccTLD delegation/redelegation are not laws, but things like RFC 1591, on what basis is the counsel's opinion made? Precedent? Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__faculty.ischool.syr.edu_mueller_mueller_Home.html&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=bpCyZSoPFLgpeMExf4dNVbcbUxg4Pj-rprkM5jhu2_0&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=EjcamHe9JK8BbuiJdB-crMgejCYj46tP1nsm94dcLZQ&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=EjcamHe9JK8BbuiJdB-crMgejCYj46tP1nsm94dcLZQ&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=EjcamHe9JK8BbuiJdB-crMgejCYj46tP1nsm94dcLZQ&e=> _________________________________________________________________ Erick Iriarte Área de Derecho de Nuevas Tecnologias IRIARTE & ASOCIADOS Dirección: Miró Quesada 191, of. 510, Lima 01, Perú Telefax: (+511) 2035400 Sitio web: iriartelaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__iriartelaw.com&d=AwMF-g&...> Twitter: @ialaw Facebook: facebook.com/ialaw<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__facebook.com_ialaw&d=AwM...> Por favor antes de imprimir piense en nuestro medio ambiente, una hoja puede hacer la diferencia en un bosque. Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest. Declaracion de Confidencialidad El contenido de este mensaje de correo electronico y de sus archivos adjuntos esta(n) dirigido(s) exclusivamente a el(los) destinatario(s) del mismo. Adicionalmente, este mensaje y su contenido pueden ser privilegiados y estar cubiertos por la reserva profesional entre abogado y cliente. Si usted no es el destinatario indicado, o si este mensaje le ha sido enviado por error, queda advertido en el sentido de no leer, divulgar, reproducir, distribuir, diseminar o utilizar este mensaje en forma alguna. La entrega de este mensaje a cualquier persona diferente del(de los) destinatario(s) a quien(es) se ha dirigido no constituye una renuncia de privilegios o confidencialidad. Si usted recibe este mensaje por error, por favor advierta al remitente mediante correo de respuesta; adicionalmente le solicitamos que inmediatamente proceda a suprimir este mensaje y sus archivos adjuntos, si los hubiere. Statement of Confidentiality The contents of this e-mail message and its attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof. In addition, this e-mail transmission may be confidential and it may be subject to privilege protecting communications between attorneys or solicitors and their clients. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this e-mail. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please alert the sender by reply e-mail; we also request that you immediately delete this message and its attachments, if any. Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest.
+1 Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 5:40 PM To: Erick Iriarte; Milton L Mueller Cc: CWG Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs The ccNSO is the source of delegation/revocation policy, based on multistakeholder processes, consensus, etc. That is very different from making a judgment in any particular case whether the policy is being applied properly. There are also complicated national law and jurisdictional issues that arise in the ccTLD context. As a ccTLD operator and a gTLD operator, I would want the right to challenge any revocation/redel decision on a case by case basis. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com<mailto:eiriarte@iriartelaw.com>> Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 at 12:12 PM To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> Cc: CWG Stewardship <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs Dear Milton almost is important to understand what is the basis of your comment, but is your decision share with us your opinion. Yours, Erick El 2/12/2014, a las 12:00, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> escribió: Desiree: So, according to you, the lawyer (counsel) who authorizes delegations/redelegations would be provided by the ccNSO? Or from some other "group of ccTLDs"? what if the ccNSO lawyer had one opinion and the lawyer provided by another group had a different opinion? Not criticizing, just trying to understand what is being proposed. Erick: My opinion of the legal status of a ccTLD is not relevant to answering those questions. I repeat: I am not criticizing the proposal, I am just trying to understand what is being proposed. From: Desiree Miloshevic [mailto:dmiloshevic@afilias.info] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:51 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: CWG Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs Milton Before you respond to Erick - I'll just say add that, for example, the ccNSO FOIWG worked on interpretation of RFC 1591 and other IANA related policy guidelines. http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-07oct14-en.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org_workinggroups_foi-2Dfinal-2D07oct14-2Den.pdf&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=11OyJb_p43oaQCyz7z_kxCYM3eereRRP4QbpFHQRdHE&e=> My understanding is that bodies like the ccNSO or group of ccTLDs are there to develop policies regarding the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs. It's my personal view that it could potentially form such a council in future and give opinions. (independent of ICANN board). Desiree -- On 2 Dec 2014, at 15:30, Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com<mailto:eiriarte@iriartelaw.com>> wrote: Milton to understand better your message and position: for you exactly what is the legal status of a cctld ? Erick El 2/12/2014, a las 10:16, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> escribió: I have some questions regarding this: "The CWG is considering replacing the authorization role, at least with regard to ccTLDs, with a written opinion from counsel (independent of ICANN) that each delegation and re-delegation request meets the policy requirements cited in the publicly posted reports." Where would this counsel come from? Whose counsel is it if it is independent of ICANN and ICANN is supplying the IANA service? Since most of the policy requirements related to ccTLD delegation/redelegation are not laws, but things like RFC 1591, on what basis is the counsel's opinion made? Precedent? Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__faculty.ischool.syr.edu_mueller_mueller_Home.html&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=bpCyZSoPFLgpeMExf4dNVbcbUxg4Pj-rprkM5jhu2_0&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=EjcamHe9JK8BbuiJdB-crMgejCYj46tP1nsm94dcLZQ&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=EjcamHe9JK8BbuiJdB-crMgejCYj46tP1nsm94dcLZQ&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=EjcamHe9JK8BbuiJdB-crMgejCYj46tP1nsm94dcLZQ&e=> _________________________________________________________________ Erick Iriarte Área de Derecho de Nuevas Tecnologias IRIARTE & ASOCIADOS Dirección: Miró Quesada 191, of. 510, Lima 01, Perú Telefax: (+511) 2035400 Sitio web: iriartelaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__iriartelaw.com&d=AwMF-g&...> Twitter: @ialaw Facebook: facebook.com/ialaw<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__facebook.com_ialaw&d=AwM...> Por favor antes de imprimir piense en nuestro medio ambiente, una hoja puede hacer la diferencia en un bosque. Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest. Declaracion de Confidencialidad El contenido de este mensaje de correo electronico y de sus archivos adjuntos esta(n) dirigido(s) exclusivamente a el(los) destinatario(s) del mismo. Adicionalmente, este mensaje y su contenido pueden ser privilegiados y estar cubiertos por la reserva profesional entre abogado y cliente. Si usted no es el destinatario indicado, o si este mensaje le ha sido enviado por error, queda advertido en el sentido de no leer, divulgar, reproducir, distribuir, diseminar o utilizar este mensaje en forma alguna. La entrega de este mensaje a cualquier persona diferente del(de los) destinatario(s) a quien(es) se ha dirigido no constituye una renuncia de privilegios o confidencialidad. Si usted recibe este mensaje por error, por favor advierta al remitente mediante correo de respuesta; adicionalmente le solicitamos que inmediatamente proceda a suprimir este mensaje y sus archivos adjuntos, si los hubiere. Statement of Confidentiality The contents of this e-mail message and its attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof. In addition, this e-mail transmission may be confidential and it may be subject to privilege protecting communications between attorneys or solicitors and their clients. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this e-mail. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please alert the sender by reply e-mail; we also request that you immediately delete this message and its attachments, if any. Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest.
+1 I certainly agree that for ccNSO members the ccNSO sets Policy for those ccTLDs that recognise the "authority" of the ccNSO. Many ccTLDs do not.... but the ccNSO still fulfills a useful role - as highlighted by the recent survey. the vast majority of ccTLDs pre-exisit ICANN so just as we need to be careful to respect the existing frameworks and RFC1591 and even those pre1591 -namely reassignment is a local matter (an no one else... ICANN/ccNSO/UN/ITU etc.) unless a ccTLD specifically cedes authority to ICANN. Please note there is no suggestion that ICANN is not respecting the position of the "independent" ccTLDs and trying to use the IANA transition as a power grab - if it were to (ab)use the transition, there would be opposition Best Paul Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
+1
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 5:40 PM To: Erick Iriarte; Milton L Mueller Cc: CWG Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs
The ccNSO is the source of delegation/revocation policy, based on multistakeholder processes, consensus, etc. That is very different from making a judgment in any particular case whether the policy is being applied properly. There are also complicated national law and jurisdictional issues that arise in the ccTLD context. As a ccTLD operator and a gTLD operator, I would want the right to challenge any revocation/redel decision on a case by case basis.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com<mailto:eiriarte@iriartelaw.com>> Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 at 12:12 PM To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> Cc: CWG Stewardship <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs
Dear Milton
almost is important to understand what is the basis of your comment, but is your decision share with us your opinion.
Yours,
Erick
El 2/12/2014, a las 12:00, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> escribió:
Desiree: So, according to you, the lawyer (counsel) who authorizes delegations/redelegations would be provided by the ccNSO? Or from some other "group of ccTLDs"? what if the ccNSO lawyer had one opinion and the lawyer provided by another group had a different opinion? Not criticizing, just trying to understand what is being proposed.
Erick: My opinion of the legal status of a ccTLD is not relevant to answering those questions. I repeat: I am not criticizing the proposal, I am just trying to understand what is being proposed.
From: Desiree Miloshevic [mailto:dmiloshevic@afilias.info] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:51 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: CWG Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs
Milton
Before you respond to Erick - I'll just say add that, for example, the ccNSO FOIWG worked on interpretation of RFC 1591 and other IANA related policy guidelines.
My understanding is that bodies like the ccNSO or group of ccTLDs are there to develop policies regarding the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs. It's my personal view that it could potentially form such a council in future and give opinions. (independent of ICANN board).
Desiree --
On 2 Dec 2014, at 15:30, Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com<mailto:eiriarte@iriartelaw.com>> wrote:
Milton to understand better your message and position: for you exactly what is the legal status of a cctld ? Erick
El 2/12/2014, a las 10:16, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> escribió:
I have some questions regarding this:
"The CWG is considering replacing the authorization role, at least with regard to ccTLDs, with a written opinion from counsel (independent of ICANN) that each delegation and re-delegation request meets the policy requirements cited in the publicly posted reports."
Where would this counsel come from? Whose counsel is it if it is independent of ICANN and ICANN is supplying the IANA service? Since most of the policy requirements related to ccTLD delegation/redelegation are not laws, but things like RFC 1591, on what basis is the counsel's opinion made? Precedent?
Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>
_________________________________________________________________ Erick Iriarte Área de Derecho de Nuevas Tecnologias
IRIARTE & ASOCIADOS Dirección: Miró Quesada 191, of. 510, Lima 01, Perú Telefax: (+511) 2035400 Sitio web:
iriartelaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__iriartelaw.com&d=AwMF-g&...>
Twitter: @ialaw Facebook:
facebook.com/ialaw<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__facebook.com_ialaw&d=AwM...>
Por favor antes de imprimir piense en nuestro medio ambiente, una hoja puede hacer la diferencia en un bosque.
Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest.
Declaracion de Confidencialidad El contenido de este mensaje de correo electronico y de sus archivos adjuntos esta(n) dirigido(s) exclusivamente a el(los) destinatario(s) del mismo. Adicionalmente, este mensaje y su contenido pueden ser privilegiados y estar cubiertos por la reserva profesional entre abogado y cliente. Si usted no es el destinatario indicado, o si este mensaje le ha sido enviado por error, queda advertido en el sentido de no leer, divulgar, reproducir, distribuir, diseminar o utilizar este mensaje en forma alguna. La entrega de este mensaje a cualquier persona diferente del(de los) destinatario(s) a quien(es) se ha dirigido no constituye una renuncia de privilegios o confidencialidad. Si usted recibe este mensaje por error, por favor advierta al remitente mediante correo de respuesta; adicionalmente le solicitamos que inmediatamente proceda a suprimir este mensaje y sus archivos adjuntos, si los hubiere.
Statement of Confidentiality The contents of this e-mail message and its attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof. In addition, this e-mail transmission may be confidential and it may be subject to privilege protecting communications between attorneys or solicitors and their clients. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this e-mail. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please alert the sender by reply e-mail; we also request that you immediately delete this message and its attachments, if any. Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:
+1
Please note there is no suggestion that ICANN is not respecting the position of the "independent" ccTLDs and trying to use the IANA transition as a power grab - if it were to (ab)use the transition, there would be opposition
+1 Cheers!
Best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
+1
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 5:40 PM To: Erick Iriarte; Milton L Mueller Cc: CWG Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs
The ccNSO is the source of delegation/revocation policy, based on multistakeholder processes, consensus, etc. That is very different from making a judgment in any particular case whether the policy is being applied properly. There are also complicated national law and jurisdictional issues that arise in the ccTLD context. As a ccTLD operator and a gTLD operator, I would want the right to challenge any revocation/redel decision on a case by case basis.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com<mailto:eiriarte@iriartelaw.com>> Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 at 12:12 PM To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> Cc: CWG Stewardship <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs
Dear Milton
almost is important to understand what is the basis of your comment, but is your decision share with us your opinion.
Yours,
Erick
El 2/12/2014, a las 12:00, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> escribió:
Desiree: So, according to you, the lawyer (counsel) who authorizes delegations/redelegations would be provided by the ccNSO? Or from some other "group of ccTLDs"? what if the ccNSO lawyer had one opinion and the lawyer provided by another group had a different opinion? Not criticizing, just trying to understand what is being proposed.
Erick: My opinion of the legal status of a ccTLD is not relevant to answering those questions. I repeat: I am not criticizing the proposal, I am just trying to understand what is being proposed.
From: Desiree Miloshevic [mailto:dmiloshevic@afilias.info] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:51 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: CWG Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs
Milton
Before you respond to Erick - I'll just say add that, for example, the ccNSO FOIWG worked on interpretation of RFC 1591 and other IANA related policy guidelines.
http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-07oct14-en.pdf<; https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org_workingg...
My understanding is that bodies like the ccNSO or group of ccTLDs are
there
to develop policies regarding the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs. It's my personal view that it could potentially form such a council in future and give opinions. (independent of ICANN board).
Desiree --
On 2 Dec 2014, at 15:30, Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com<mailto:eiriarte@iriartelaw.com>> wrote:
Milton to understand better your message and position: for you exactly what is the legal status of a cctld ? Erick
El 2/12/2014, a las 10:16, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> escribió:
I have some questions regarding this:
"The CWG is considering replacing the authorization role, at least with regard to ccTLDs, with a written opinion from counsel (independent of ICANN) that each delegation and re-delegation request meets the policy requirements cited in the publicly posted reports."
Where would this counsel come from? Whose counsel is it if it is independent of ICANN and ICANN is supplying the IANA service? Since most of the policy requirements related to ccTLD delegation/redelegation are not laws, but things like RFC 1591, on what basis is the counsel's opinion made? Precedent?
Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html<; https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__faculty.ischool.syr.edu_...
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<; https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<; https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<; https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
_________________________________________________________________ Erick Iriarte Área de Derecho de Nuevas Tecnologias
IRIARTE & ASOCIADOS Dirección: Miró Quesada 191, of. 510, Lima 01, Perú Telefax: (+511) 2035400 Sitio web:
iriartelaw.com< https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__iriartelaw.com&d=AwMF-g&...
Twitter: @ialaw Facebook:
facebook.com/ialaw< https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__facebook.com_ialaw&d=AwM...
Por favor antes de imprimir piense en nuestro medio ambiente, una hoja
puede
hacer la diferencia en un bosque.
Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest.
Declaracion de Confidencialidad El contenido de este mensaje de correo electronico y de sus archivos adjuntos esta(n) dirigido(s) exclusivamente a el(los) destinatario(s) del mismo. Adicionalmente, este mensaje y su contenido pueden ser privilegiados y estar cubiertos por la reserva profesional entre abogado y cliente. Si usted no es el destinatario indicado, o si este mensaje le ha sido enviado por error, queda advertido en el sentido de no leer, divulgar, reproducir, distribuir, diseminar o utilizar este mensaje en forma alguna. La entrega de este mensaje a cualquier persona diferente del(de los) destinatario(s) a quien(es) se ha dirigido no constituye una renuncia de privilegios o confidencialidad. Si usted recibe este mensaje por error, por favor advierta al remitente mediante correo de respuesta; adicionalmente le solicitamos que inmediatamente proceda a suprimir este mensaje y sus archivos adjuntos, si los hubiere.
Statement of Confidentiality The contents of this e-mail message and its attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof. In addition, this e-mail transmission may be confidential and it may be subject to privilege protecting communications between attorneys or solicitors and their clients. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this e-mail. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please alert the sender by reply e-mail; we also request that you immediately delete this message and its attachments, if any. Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
+1 here. Regards, Vika From: "Becky.Burr@neustar.biz" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> Date: Thursday 04 December 2014 12:40 AM To: Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com>, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Cc: CWG Stewardship <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs The ccNSO is the source of delegation/revocation policy, based on multistakeholder processes, consensus, etc. That is very different from making a judgment in any particular case whether the policy is being applied properly. There are also complicated national law and jurisdictional issues that arise in the ccTLD context. As a ccTLD operator and a gTLD operator, I would want the right to challenge any revocation/redel decision on a case by case basis. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz From: Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com> Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 at 12:12 PM To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Cc: CWG Stewardship <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs Dear Milton almost is important to understand what is the basis of your comment, but is your decision share with us your opinion. Yours, Erick
El 2/12/2014, a las 12:00, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> escribió:
Desiree: So, according to you, the lawyer (counsel) who authorizes delegations/redelegations would be provided by the ccNSO? Or from some other ³group of ccTLDs²? what if the ccNSO lawyer had one opinion and the lawyer provided by another group had a different opinion? Not criticizing, just trying to understand what is being proposed.
Erick: My opinion of the legal status of a ccTLD is not relevant to answering those questions. I repeat: I am not criticizing the proposal, I am just trying to understand what is being proposed.
From: Desiree Miloshevic [mailto:dmiloshevic@afilias.info] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:51 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: CWG Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs
Milton
Before you respond to Erick - I'll just say add that, for example, the ccNSO FOIWG worked on interpretation of RFC 1591 and other IANA related policy guidelines. http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-07oct14-en.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org_workingg... oups_foi-2Dfinal-2D07oct14-2Den.pdf&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFO ifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLx DDbv8&s=11OyJb_p43oaQCyz7z_kxCYM3eereRRP4QbpFHQRdHE&e=>
My understanding is that bodies like the ccNSO or group of ccTLDs are there to develop policies regarding the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs. It's my personal view that it could potentially form such a council in future and give opinions. (independent of ICANN board).
Desiree --
On 2 Dec 2014, at 15:30, Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com> wrote:
Milton to understand better your message and position: for you exactly what is the legal status of a cctld ? Erick
El 2/12/2014, a las 10:16, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> escribió:
I have some questions regarding this:
"The CWG is considering replacing the authorization role, at least with regard to ccTLDs, with a written opinion from counsel (independent of ICANN) that each delegation and re-delegation request meets the policy requirements cited in the publicly posted reports."
Where would this counsel come from? Whose counsel is it if it is independent of ICANN and ICANN is supplying the IANA service? Since most of the policy requirements related to ccTLD delegation/redelegation are not laws, but things like RFC 1591, on what basis is the counsel's opinion made? Precedent?
Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__faculty.ischool.syr.edu _mueller_mueller_Home.html&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_ GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8 &s=bpCyZSoPFLgpeMExf4dNVbcbUxg4Pj-rprkM5jhu2_0&e=>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l istinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_G Rlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8& s=EjcamHe9JK8BbuiJdB-crMgejCYj46tP1nsm94dcLZQ&e=>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li stinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRl aq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=E jcamHe9JK8BbuiJdB-crMgejCYj46tP1nsm94dcLZQ&e=>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... tinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq 8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=Ejca mHe9JK8BbuiJdB-crMgejCYj46tP1nsm94dcLZQ&e=>
_________________________________________________________________ Erick Iriarte Área de Derecho de Nuevas Tecnologias IRIARTE & ASOCIADOS Dirección: Miró Quesada 191, of. 510, Lima 01, Perú Telefax: (+511) 2035400 Sitio web: iriartelaw.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__iriartelaw.com&d=AwMF-g &c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zc k_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=JE5klTXzrkV1vU4xATaXu1uPEoplII15 yc8XUDkYYEo&e=> Twitter: @ialaw Facebook: facebook.com/ialaw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__facebook.com_ialaw&d=Aw MF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k& m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=TvjUHmmf0tsD6zRkauhlcfgyhNhS bjstJ34QZMSa7KU&e=> Por favor antes de imprimir piense en nuestro medio ambiente, una hoja puede hacer la diferencia en un bosque. Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest. Declaracion de Confidencialidad El contenido de este mensaje de correo electronico y de sus archivos adjuntos esta(n) dirigido(s) exclusivamente a el(los) destinatario(s) del mismo. Adicionalmente, este mensaje y su contenido pueden ser privilegiados y estar cubiertos por la reserva profesional entre abogado y cliente. Si usted no es el destinatario indicado, o si este mensaje le ha sido enviado por error, queda advertido en el sentido de no leer, divulgar, reproducir, distribuir, diseminar o utilizar este mensaje en forma alguna. La entrega de este mensaje a cualquier persona diferente del(de los) destinatario(s) a quien(es) se ha dirigido no constituye una renuncia de privilegios o confidencialidad. Si usted recibe este mensaje por error, por favor advierta al remitente mediante correo de respuesta; adicionalmente le solicitamos que inmediatamente proceda a suprimir este mensaje y sus archivos adjuntos, si los hubiere. Statement of Confidentiality The contents of this e-mail message and its attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof. In addition, this e-mail transmission may be confidential and it may be subject to privilege protecting communications between attorneys or solicitors and their clients. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this e-mail. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please alert the sender by reply e-mail; we also request that you immediately delete this message and its attachments, if any. Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I agree with what Becky Burr asserted below. But everyone seems to have lost track of what the original question was. Let me repeat: "The CWG is considering replacing the authorization role, at least with regard to ccTLDs, with a written opinion from counsel (independent of ICANN) that each delegation and re-delegation request meets the policy requirements cited in the publicly posted reports." I simply asked: Where does this written opinion come from? And... What is the procedure for appointing an independent counsel to provide it? Can someone simply try to answer that question? From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 5:40 PM To: Erick Iriarte; Milton L Mueller Cc: CWG Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs The ccNSO is the source of delegation/revocation policy, based on multistakeholder processes, consensus, etc. That is very different from making a judgment in any particular case whether the policy is being applied properly. There are also complicated national law and jurisdictional issues that arise in the ccTLD context. As a ccTLD operator and a gTLD operator, I would want the right to challenge any revocation/redel decision on a case by case basis. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com<mailto:eiriarte@iriartelaw.com>> Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 at 12:12 PM To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> Cc: CWG Stewardship <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs Dear Milton almost is important to understand what is the basis of your comment, but is your decision share with us your opinion. Yours, Erick El 2/12/2014, a las 12:00, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> escribió: Desiree: So, according to you, the lawyer (counsel) who authorizes delegations/redelegations would be provided by the ccNSO? Or from some other "group of ccTLDs"? what if the ccNSO lawyer had one opinion and the lawyer provided by another group had a different opinion? Not criticizing, just trying to understand what is being proposed. Erick: My opinion of the legal status of a ccTLD is not relevant to answering those questions. I repeat: I am not criticizing the proposal, I am just trying to understand what is being proposed. From: Desiree Miloshevic [mailto:dmiloshevic@afilias.info] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:51 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: CWG Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs Milton Before you respond to Erick - I'll just say add that, for example, the ccNSO FOIWG worked on interpretation of RFC 1591 and other IANA related policy guidelines. http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-07oct14-en.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org_workinggroups_foi-2Dfinal-2D07oct14-2Den.pdf&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=11OyJb_p43oaQCyz7z_kxCYM3eereRRP4QbpFHQRdHE&e=> My understanding is that bodies like the ccNSO or group of ccTLDs are there to develop policies regarding the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs. It's my personal view that it could potentially form such a council in future and give opinions. (independent of ICANN board). Desiree -- On 2 Dec 2014, at 15:30, Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com<mailto:eiriarte@iriartelaw.com>> wrote: Milton to understand better your message and position: for you exactly what is the legal status of a cctld ? Erick El 2/12/2014, a las 10:16, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> escribió: I have some questions regarding this: "The CWG is considering replacing the authorization role, at least with regard to ccTLDs, with a written opinion from counsel (independent of ICANN) that each delegation and re-delegation request meets the policy requirements cited in the publicly posted reports." Where would this counsel come from? Whose counsel is it if it is independent of ICANN and ICANN is supplying the IANA service? Since most of the policy requirements related to ccTLD delegation/redelegation are not laws, but things like RFC 1591, on what basis is the counsel's opinion made? Precedent? Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__faculty.ischool.syr.edu_mueller_mueller_Home.html&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=bpCyZSoPFLgpeMExf4dNVbcbUxg4Pj-rprkM5jhu2_0&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=EjcamHe9JK8BbuiJdB-crMgejCYj46tP1nsm94dcLZQ&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=EjcamHe9JK8BbuiJdB-crMgejCYj46tP1nsm94dcLZQ&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=EjcamHe9JK8BbuiJdB-crMgejCYj46tP1nsm94dcLZQ&e=> _________________________________________________________________ Erick Iriarte Área de Derecho de Nuevas Tecnologias IRIARTE & ASOCIADOS Dirección: Miró Quesada 191, of. 510, Lima 01, Perú Telefax: (+511) 2035400 Sitio web: iriartelaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__iriartelaw.com&d=AwMF-g&...> Twitter: @ialaw Facebook: facebook.com/ialaw<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__facebook.com_ialaw&d=AwM...> Por favor antes de imprimir piense en nuestro medio ambiente, una hoja puede hacer la diferencia en un bosque. Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest. Declaracion de Confidencialidad El contenido de este mensaje de correo electronico y de sus archivos adjuntos esta(n) dirigido(s) exclusivamente a el(los) destinatario(s) del mismo. Adicionalmente, este mensaje y su contenido pueden ser privilegiados y estar cubiertos por la reserva profesional entre abogado y cliente. Si usted no es el destinatario indicado, o si este mensaje le ha sido enviado por error, queda advertido en el sentido de no leer, divulgar, reproducir, distribuir, diseminar o utilizar este mensaje en forma alguna. La entrega de este mensaje a cualquier persona diferente del(de los) destinatario(s) a quien(es) se ha dirigido no constituye una renuncia de privilegios o confidencialidad. Si usted recibe este mensaje por error, por favor advierta al remitente mediante correo de respuesta; adicionalmente le solicitamos que inmediatamente proceda a suprimir este mensaje y sus archivos adjuntos, si los hubiere. Statement of Confidentiality The contents of this e-mail message and its attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof. In addition, this e-mail transmission may be confidential and it may be subject to privilege protecting communications between attorneys or solicitors and their clients. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this e-mail. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please alert the sender by reply e-mail; we also request that you immediately delete this message and its attachments, if any. Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest.
Good evening: Lest I should be suspected of paresse wallonienne, I shall be off-line most of the time for the next five days in Prague for EURid meetings. Meanwhile, best wishes to you all CW On 04 Dec 2014, at 15:36, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
I agree with what Becky Burr asserted below. But everyone seems to have lost track of what the original question was. Let me repeat:
"The CWG is considering replacing the authorization role, at least with regard to ccTLDs, with a written opinion from counsel (independent of ICANN) that each delegation and re-delegation request meets the policy requirements cited in the publicly posted reports."
I simply asked:
Where does this written opinion come from?
And…
What is the procedure for appointing an independent counsel to provide it?
Can someone simply try to answer that question?
From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 5:40 PM To: Erick Iriarte; Milton L Mueller Cc: CWG Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs
The ccNSO is the source of delegation/revocation policy, based on multistakeholder processes, consensus, etc. That is very different from making a judgment in any particular case whether the policy is being applied properly. There are also complicated national law and jurisdictional issues that arise in the ccTLD context. As a ccTLD operator and a gTLD operator, I would want the right to challenge any revocation/redel decision on a case by case basis.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
From: Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com> Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 at 12:12 PM To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Cc: CWG Stewardship <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs
Dear Milton
almost is important to understand what is the basis of your comment, but is your decision share with us your opinion.
Yours,
Erick
El 2/12/2014, a las 12:00, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> escribió:
Desiree: So, according to you, the lawyer (counsel) who authorizes delegations/redelegations would be provided by the ccNSO? Or from some other “group of ccTLDs”? what if the ccNSO lawyer had one opinion and the lawyer provided by another group had a different opinion? Not criticizing, just trying to understand what is being proposed.
Erick: My opinion of the legal status of a ccTLD is not relevant to answering those questions. I repeat: I am not criticizing the proposal, I am just trying to understand what is being proposed.
From: Desiree Miloshevic [mailto:dmiloshevic@afilias.info] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:51 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: CWG Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs
Milton
Before you respond to Erick - I'll just say add that, for example, the ccNSO FOIWG worked on interpretation of RFC 1591 and other IANA related policy guidelines. http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-07oct14-en.pdf
My understanding is that bodies like the ccNSO or group of ccTLDs are there to develop policies regarding the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs. It's my personal view that it could potentially form such a council in future and give opinions. (independent of ICANN board).
Desiree --
On 2 Dec 2014, at 15:30, Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com> wrote:
Milton to understand better your message and position: for you exactly what is the legal status of a cctld ? Erick
El 2/12/2014, a las 10:16, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> escribió:
I have some questions regarding this:
"The CWG is considering replacing the authorization role, at least with regard to ccTLDs, with a written opinion from counsel (independent of ICANN) that each delegation and re-delegation request meets the policy requirements cited in the publicly posted reports."
Where would this counsel come from? Whose counsel is it if it is independent of ICANN and ICANN is supplying the IANA service? Since most of the policy requirements related to ccTLD delegation/redelegation are not laws, but things like RFC 1591, on what basis is the counsel's opinion made? Precedent?
Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_________________________________________________________________ Erick Iriarte Área de Derecho de Nuevas Tecnologias
IRIARTE & ASOCIADOS Dirección: Miró Quesada 191, of. 510, Lima 01, Perú Telefax: (+511) 2035400 Sitio web: iriartelaw.com Twitter: @ialaw Facebook: facebook.com/ialaw
Por favor antes de imprimir piense en nuestro medio ambiente, una hoja puede hacer la diferencia en un bosque.
Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest.
Declaracion de Confidencialidad El contenido de este mensaje de correo electronico y de sus archivos adjuntos esta(n) dirigido(s) exclusivamente a el(los) destinatario(s) del mismo. Adicionalmente, este mensaje y su contenido pueden ser privilegiados y estar cubiertos por la reserva profesional entre abogado y cliente. Si usted no es el destinatario indicado, o si este mensaje le ha sido enviado por error, queda advertido en el sentido de no leer, divulgar, reproducir, distribuir, diseminar o utilizar este mensaje en forma alguna. La entrega de este mensaje a cualquier persona diferente del(de los) destinatario(s) a quien(es) se ha dirigido no constituye una renuncia de privilegios o confidencialidad. Si usted recibe este mensaje por error, por favor advierta al remitente mediante correo de respuesta; adicionalmente le solicitamos que inmediatamente proceda a suprimir este mensaje y sus archivos adjuntos, si los hubiere.
Statement of Confidentiality The contents of this e-mail message and its attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof. In addition, this e-mail transmission may be confidential and it may be subject to privilege protecting communications between attorneys or solicitors and their clients. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this e-mail. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please alert the sender by reply e-mail; we also request that you immediately delete this message and its attachments, if any. Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Milton, I'll take a quick stab at these questions, inline below. On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
I agree with what Becky Burr asserted below. But everyone seems to have lost track of what the original question was. Let me repeat:
"The CWG is considering replacing the authorization role, at least with regard to ccTLDs, with a written opinion from counsel (independent of ICANN) that each delegation and re-delegation request meets the policy requirements cited in the publicly posted reports."
I simply asked:
Where does this written opinion come from?
GS: Independent counsel. Probably some poor shmuck in a very large law firm with very good malpractice insurance. Being a legal review, said shmuck would review all of the relevant policy, and relevant implementation guidance (hopefully with a fair amount of prior knowledge, so this is a review not a major learning experience), and determine whether there was any divergence between said policy and the del/redel request. Since the del/redel reports are supposed to cite to policy, this would not be too much of a research project, assuming the del/redel request is filled out accurately.
And…
:
What is the procedure for appointing an independent counsel to provide it?
GS: I don't think this has been discussed much. I might suggest an RFP, issued by the MRT. This implies enough revenue to keep the lawyer(s) fed.
Can someone simply try to answer that question?
GS: That's my try. Frankly, I'm not overly enthusiastic about this concept. I'm not sure the task is well matched to the lawyers' skill set, but, if it's a review against policy, it may not be a bad fit. I guess lawyers may be more willing to give this kind of opinion than some other professionals. I might expect some caveats on that opinion, as lawyers do, to keep their malpractice insurers happy. So the question is, if not lawyers, who is willing to be the last set of eyes before it goes to Verisign to be entered into the root?.
*From:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 3, 2014 5:40 PM *To:* Erick Iriarte; Milton L Mueller
*Cc:* CWG Stewardship *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs
The ccNSO is the source of delegation/revocation policy, based on multistakeholder processes, consensus, etc. That is very different from making a judgment in any particular case whether the policy is being applied properly. There are also complicated national law and jurisdictional issues that arise in the ccTLD context. As a ccTLD operator and a gTLD operator, I would want the right to challenge any revocation/redel decision on a case by case basis.
J. Beckwith Burr
*Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
*From: *Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com> *Date: *Tuesday, December 2, 2014 at 12:12 PM *To: *Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> *Cc: *CWG Stewardship <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs
Dear Milton
almost is important to understand what is the basis of your comment, but is your decision share with us your opinion.
Yours,
Erick
El 2/12/2014, a las 12:00, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> escribió:
Desiree:
So, according to you, the lawyer (counsel) who authorizes delegations/redelegations would be provided by the ccNSO? Or from some other “group of ccTLDs”? what if the ccNSO lawyer had one opinion and the lawyer provided by another group had a different opinion? Not criticizing, just trying to understand what is being proposed.
Erick:
My opinion of the legal status of a ccTLD is not relevant to answering those questions. I repeat: I am not criticizing the proposal, I am just trying to understand what is being proposed.
*From:* Desiree Miloshevic [mailto:dmiloshevic@afilias.info <dmiloshevic@afilias.info>] *Sent:* Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:51 AM *To:* Milton L Mueller *Cc:* CWG Stewardship *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs
Milton
Before you respond to Erick - I'll just say add that, for example, the ccNSO FOIWG worked on interpretation of RFC 1591 and other IANA related policy guidelines.
http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-07oct14-en.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org_workingg...>
My understanding is that bodies like the ccNSO or group of ccTLDs are there to develop policies regarding the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs.
It's my personal view that it could potentially form such a council in future and give opinions. (independent of ICANN board).
Desiree
--
On 2 Dec 2014, at 15:30, Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com> wrote:
Milton to understand better your message and position: for you exactly what is the legal status of a cctld ? Erick
El 2/12/2014, a las 10:16, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> escribió:
I have some questions regarding this:
"The CWG is considering replacing the authorization role, at least with regard to ccTLDs, with a written opinion from counsel (independent of ICANN) that each delegation and re-delegation request meets the policy requirements cited in the publicly posted reports."
Where would this counsel come from? Whose counsel is it if it is independent of ICANN and ICANN is supplying the IANA service? Since most of the policy requirements related to ccTLD delegation/redelegation are not laws, but things like RFC 1591, on what basis is the counsel's opinion made? Precedent?
Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__faculty.ischool.syr.edu_...>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_________________________________________________________________ Erick Iriarte Área de Derecho de Nuevas Tecnologias
IRIARTE & ASOCIADOS Dirección: Miró Quesada 191, of. 510, Lima 01, Perú Telefax: (+511) 2035400 Sitio web: iriartelaw.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__iriartelaw.com&d=AwMF-g&...> Twitter: @ialaw Facebook: facebook.com/ialaw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__facebook.com_ialaw&d=AwM...>
Por favor antes de imprimir piense en nuestro medio ambiente, una hoja puede hacer la diferencia en un bosque.
Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest.
Declaracion de Confidencialidad El contenido de este mensaje de correo electronico y de sus archivos adjuntos esta(n) dirigido(s) exclusivamente a el(los) destinatario(s) del mismo. Adicionalmente, este mensaje y su contenido pueden ser privilegiados y estar cubiertos por la reserva profesional entre abogado y cliente. Si usted no es el destinatario indicado, o si este mensaje le ha sido enviado por error, queda advertido en el sentido de no leer, divulgar, reproducir, distribuir, diseminar o utilizar este mensaje en forma alguna. La entrega de este mensaje a cualquier persona diferente del(de los) destinatario(s) a quien(es) se ha dirigido no constituye una renuncia de privilegios o confidencialidad. Si usted recibe este mensaje por error, por favor advierta al remitente mediante correo de respuesta; adicionalmente le solicitamos que inmediatamente proceda a suprimir este mensaje y sus archivos adjuntos, si los hubiere.
Statement of Confidentiality The contents of this e-mail message and its attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof. In addition, this e-mail transmission may be confidential and it may be subject to privilege protecting communications between attorneys or solicitors and their clients. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this e-mail. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please alert the sender by reply e-mail; we also request that you immediately delete this message and its attachments, if any. Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Becky, If you are saying that you would want the right to challenge any revocation/redelegation decision associated with .us, I would agree with you and that is built into the proposal via the Independent Appeals Panel. If you think it appropriate for .us to appeal a decision made for .uk, I'm less than sure I like the idea. In fact I think I'd see it as meddling in another country's ccTLD and I would consider that to be of serious concern. Of course there is an option for ex-post assessment of IANA decisions against policy (and I think that a repository of case histories would be of value for a significantly interested party appealing a decision), but that would not be an authorisation process. For the moment I am not convinced about the need to replicate the NTIA authorisation process - which was always a source of considerable suspicion and international political opposition to the US government's role. I am not convinced that NTIA ever exercised its veto over a delegation. And formalising it in the new process introduces a gatekeeper function that I think is inappropriate. I'd also wonder about the liability of the entity that played that role. Cheers Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: 03 December 2014 22:40 To: Erick Iriarte; Milton L Mueller Cc: CWG Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs The ccNSO is the source of delegation/revocation policy, based on multistakeholder processes, consensus, etc. That is very different from making a judgment in any particular case whether the policy is being applied properly. There are also complicated national law and jurisdictional issues that arise in the ccTLD context. As a ccTLD operator and a gTLD operator, I would want the right to challenge any revocation/redel decision on a case by case basis. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com<mailto:eiriarte@iriartelaw.com>> Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 at 12:12 PM To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> Cc: CWG Stewardship <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs Dear Milton almost is important to understand what is the basis of your comment, but is your decision share with us your opinion. Yours, Erick El 2/12/2014, a las 12:00, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> escribió: Desiree: So, according to you, the lawyer (counsel) who authorizes delegations/redelegations would be provided by the ccNSO? Or from some other "group of ccTLDs"? what if the ccNSO lawyer had one opinion and the lawyer provided by another group had a different opinion? Not criticizing, just trying to understand what is being proposed. Erick: My opinion of the legal status of a ccTLD is not relevant to answering those questions. I repeat: I am not criticizing the proposal, I am just trying to understand what is being proposed. From: Desiree Miloshevic [mailto:dmiloshevic@afilias.info] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:51 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: CWG Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs Milton Before you respond to Erick - I'll just say add that, for example, the ccNSO FOIWG worked on interpretation of RFC 1591 and other IANA related policy guidelines. http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-07oct14-en.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org_workinggroups_foi-2Dfinal-2D07oct14-2Den.pdf&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=11OyJb_p43oaQCyz7z_kxCYM3eereRRP4QbpFHQRdHE&e=> My understanding is that bodies like the ccNSO or group of ccTLDs are there to develop policies regarding the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs. It's my personal view that it could potentially form such a council in future and give opinions. (independent of ICANN board). Desiree -- On 2 Dec 2014, at 15:30, Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com<mailto:eiriarte@iriartelaw.com>> wrote: Milton to understand better your message and position: for you exactly what is the legal status of a cctld ? Erick El 2/12/2014, a las 10:16, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> escribió: I have some questions regarding this: "The CWG is considering replacing the authorization role, at least with regard to ccTLDs, with a written opinion from counsel (independent of ICANN) that each delegation and re-delegation request meets the policy requirements cited in the publicly posted reports." Where would this counsel come from? Whose counsel is it if it is independent of ICANN and ICANN is supplying the IANA service? Since most of the policy requirements related to ccTLD delegation/redelegation are not laws, but things like RFC 1591, on what basis is the counsel's opinion made? Precedent? Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__faculty.ischool.syr.edu_mueller_mueller_Home.html&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=bpCyZSoPFLgpeMExf4dNVbcbUxg4Pj-rprkM5jhu2_0&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=EjcamHe9JK8BbuiJdB-crMgejCYj46tP1nsm94dcLZQ&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=EjcamHe9JK8BbuiJdB-crMgejCYj46tP1nsm94dcLZQ&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=EjcamHe9JK8BbuiJdB-crMgejCYj46tP1nsm94dcLZQ&e=> _________________________________________________________________ Erick Iriarte Área de Derecho de Nuevas Tecnologias IRIARTE & ASOCIADOS Dirección: Miró Quesada 191, of. 510, Lima 01, Perú Telefax: (+511) 2035400 Sitio web: iriartelaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__iriartelaw.com&d=AwMF-g&...> Twitter: @ialaw Facebook: facebook.com/ialaw<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__facebook.com_ialaw&d=AwM...> Por favor antes de imprimir piense en nuestro medio ambiente, una hoja puede hacer la diferencia en un bosque. Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest. Declaracion de Confidencialidad El contenido de este mensaje de correo electronico y de sus archivos adjuntos esta(n) dirigido(s) exclusivamente a el(los) destinatario(s) del mismo. Adicionalmente, este mensaje y su contenido pueden ser privilegiados y estar cubiertos por la reserva profesional entre abogado y cliente. Si usted no es el destinatario indicado, o si este mensaje le ha sido enviado por error, queda advertido en el sentido de no leer, divulgar, reproducir, distribuir, diseminar o utilizar este mensaje en forma alguna. La entrega de este mensaje a cualquier persona diferente del(de los) destinatario(s) a quien(es) se ha dirigido no constituye una renuncia de privilegios o confidencialidad. Si usted recibe este mensaje por error, por favor advierta al remitente mediante correo de respuesta; adicionalmente le solicitamos que inmediatamente proceda a suprimir este mensaje y sus archivos adjuntos, si los hubiere. Statement of Confidentiality The contents of this e-mail message and its attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof. In addition, this e-mail transmission may be confidential and it may be subject to privilege protecting communications between attorneys or solicitors and their clients. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this e-mail. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please alert the sender by reply e-mail; we also request that you immediately delete this message and its attachments, if any. Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest.
I am saying the first – and I would oppose the second J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz From: Martin Boyle <martin.boyle@nominet.org.uk<mailto:martin.boyle@nominet.org.uk>> Date: Thursday, December 4, 2014 at 2:52 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com<mailto:eiriarte@iriartelaw.com>>, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> Cc: CWG Stewardship <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs Becky, If you are saying that you would want the right to challenge any revocation/redelegation decision associated with .us, I would agree with you and that is built into the proposal via the Independent Appeals Panel. If you think it appropriate for .us to appeal a decision made for .uk, I’m less than sure I like the idea. In fact I think I’d see it as meddling in another country’s ccTLD and I would consider that to be of serious concern. Of course there is an option for ex-post assessment of IANA decisions against policy (and I think that a repository of case histories would be of value for a significantly interested party appealing a decision), but that would not be an authorisation process. For the moment I am not convinced about the need to replicate the NTIA authorisation process – which was always a source of considerable suspicion and international political opposition to the US government’s role. I am not convinced that NTIA ever exercised its veto over a delegation. And formalising it in the new process introduces a gatekeeper function that I think is inappropriate. I’d also wonder about the liability of the entity that played that role. Cheers Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: 03 December 2014 22:40 To: Erick Iriarte; Milton L Mueller Cc: CWG Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs The ccNSO is the source of delegation/revocation policy, based on multistakeholder processes, consensus, etc. That is very different from making a judgment in any particular case whether the policy is being applied properly. There are also complicated national law and jurisdictional issues that arise in the ccTLD context. As a ccTLD operator and a gTLD operator, I would want the right to challenge any revocation/redel decision on a case by case basis. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com<mailto:eiriarte@iriartelaw.com>> Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 at 12:12 PM To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> Cc: CWG Stewardship <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs Dear Milton almost is important to understand what is the basis of your comment, but is your decision share with us your opinion. Yours, Erick El 2/12/2014, a las 12:00, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> escribió: Desiree: So, according to you, the lawyer (counsel) who authorizes delegations/redelegations would be provided by the ccNSO? Or from some other “group of ccTLDs”? what if the ccNSO lawyer had one opinion and the lawyer provided by another group had a different opinion? Not criticizing, just trying to understand what is being proposed. Erick: My opinion of the legal status of a ccTLD is not relevant to answering those questions. I repeat: I am not criticizing the proposal, I am just trying to understand what is being proposed. From: Desiree Miloshevic [mailto:dmiloshevic@afilias.info] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:51 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: CWG Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs Milton Before you respond to Erick - I'll just say add that, for example, the ccNSO FOIWG worked on interpretation of RFC 1591 and other IANA related policy guidelines. http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-07oct14-en.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org_workinggroups_foi-2Dfinal-2D07oct14-2Den.pdf&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=11OyJb_p43oaQCyz7z_kxCYM3eereRRP4QbpFHQRdHE&e=> My understanding is that bodies like the ccNSO or group of ccTLDs are there to develop policies regarding the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs. It's my personal view that it could potentially form such a council in future and give opinions. (independent of ICANN board). Desiree -- On 2 Dec 2014, at 15:30, Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com<mailto:eiriarte@iriartelaw.com>> wrote: Milton to understand better your message and position: for you exactly what is the legal status of a cctld ? Erick El 2/12/2014, a las 10:16, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> escribió: I have some questions regarding this: "The CWG is considering replacing the authorization role, at least with regard to ccTLDs, with a written opinion from counsel (independent of ICANN) that each delegation and re-delegation request meets the policy requirements cited in the publicly posted reports." Where would this counsel come from? Whose counsel is it if it is independent of ICANN and ICANN is supplying the IANA service? Since most of the policy requirements related to ccTLD delegation/redelegation are not laws, but things like RFC 1591, on what basis is the counsel's opinion made? Precedent? Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__faculty.ischool.syr.edu_mueller_mueller_Home.html&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=bpCyZSoPFLgpeMExf4dNVbcbUxg4Pj-rprkM5jhu2_0&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=EjcamHe9JK8BbuiJdB-crMgejCYj46tP1nsm94dcLZQ&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=EjcamHe9JK8BbuiJdB-crMgejCYj46tP1nsm94dcLZQ&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=EjcamHe9JK8BbuiJdB-crMgejCYj46tP1nsm94dcLZQ&e=> _________________________________________________________________ Erick Iriarte Área de Derecho de Nuevas Tecnologias IRIARTE & ASOCIADOS Dirección: Miró Quesada 191, of. 510, Lima 01, Perú Telefax: (+511) 2035400 Sitio web: iriartelaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__iriartelaw.com&d=AwMF-g&...> Twitter: @ialaw Facebook: facebook.com/ialaw<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__facebook.com_ialaw&d=AwM...> Por favor antes de imprimir piense en nuestro medio ambiente, una hoja puede hacer la diferencia en un bosque. Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest. Declaracion de Confidencialidad El contenido de este mensaje de correo electronico y de sus archivos adjuntos esta(n) dirigido(s) exclusivamente a el(los) destinatario(s) del mismo. Adicionalmente, este mensaje y su contenido pueden ser privilegiados y estar cubiertos por la reserva profesional entre abogado y cliente. Si usted no es el destinatario indicado, o si este mensaje le ha sido enviado por error, queda advertido en el sentido de no leer, divulgar, reproducir, distribuir, diseminar o utilizar este mensaje en forma alguna. La entrega de este mensaje a cualquier persona diferente del(de los) destinatario(s) a quien(es) se ha dirigido no constituye una renuncia de privilegios o confidencialidad. Si usted recibe este mensaje por error, por favor advierta al remitente mediante correo de respuesta; adicionalmente le solicitamos que inmediatamente proceda a suprimir este mensaje y sus archivos adjuntos, si los hubiere. Statement of Confidentiality The contents of this e-mail message and its attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof. In addition, this e-mail transmission may be confidential and it may be subject to privilege protecting communications between attorneys or solicitors and their clients. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this e-mail. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please alert the sender by reply e-mail; we also request that you immediately delete this message and its attachments, if any. Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest.
On 2 Dec 2014, at 17:00, Milton L Mueller <mueller@SYR.EDU> wrote:
Desiree: So, according to you, the lawyer (counsel) who authorizes delegations/redelegations would be provided by the ccNSO? Or from some other “group of ccTLDs”?
I don't think that there is so much form or detail necessary right now, as long as there is a foreseen mechanism that can be used.
what if the ccNSO lawyer had one opinion and the lawyer provided by another group had a different opinion? Not criticizing, just trying to understand what is being proposed.
Right. +1 to Becky and Paul. As long as there is a way for a ccTLD ( be it part or not part of the ccNSO group or not) to challenge the process or the decision, that is all that is required. {who knows, nonccNSO ccTLDs may all join the ccNSO in the foreseable future} hope this helps Desiree --
Erick: My opinion of the legal status of a ccTLD is not relevant to answering those questions. I repeat: I am not criticizing the proposal, I am just trying to understand what is being proposed.
From: Desiree Miloshevic [mailto:dmiloshevic@afilias.info] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:51 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: CWG Stewardship Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs
Milton
Before you respond to Erick - I'll just say add that, for example, the ccNSO FOIWG worked on interpretation of RFC 1591 and other IANA related policy guidelines. http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-07oct14-en.pdf
My understanding is that bodies like the ccNSO or group of ccTLDs are there to develop policies regarding the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs. It's my personal view that it could potentially form such a council in future and give opinions. (independent of ICANN board).
Desiree --
On 2 Dec 2014, at 15:30, Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com> wrote:
Milton to understand better your message and position: for you exactly what is the legal status of a cctld ? Erick
El 2/12/2014, a las 10:16, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> escribió:
I have some questions regarding this:
"The CWG is considering replacing the authorization role, at least with regard to ccTLDs, with a written opinion from counsel (independent of ICANN) that each delegation and re-delegation request meets the policy requirements cited in the publicly posted reports."
Where would this counsel come from? Whose counsel is it if it is independent of ICANN and ICANN is supplying the IANA service? Since most of the policy requirements related to ccTLD delegation/redelegation are not laws, but things like RFC 1591, on what basis is the counsel's opinion made? Precedent?
Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (11)
-
Burr, Becky -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Desiree Miloshevic -
Erick Iriarte -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
Martin Boyle -
Milton L Mueller -
Paul M Kane - CWG -
Seun Ojedeji -
Vika Mpisane