All, Please see below for Sidley’s communication with the CWG Client Committee on the PTI Bylaws. Apologies on behalf of the Client Committee that these were not shared with the CWG more promptly. It seems to me that there are two key issues: 1. We need to understand the landscape of open issues – we will take input from Sidley in the CWG meeting today on these 2. We need assistance from Sidley in converting the summary / map of those issues into structured public comment on the PTI Bylaws. Thank-you, Jonathan From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 11 July 2016 05:29 To: Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org> Subject: [client com] PTI Bylaws Dear All, Update on PTI Bylaws: We have been working with ICANN legal on revisions to the PTI bylaws based on the input we have received from CWG. We had a call with ICANN legal on Friday afternoon and we circulated a revised draft of the PTI bylaws to ICANN legal on Saturday. On Sunday, ICANN legal circulated a further revised draft (marked to show changes from the Sidley draft), which is attached. We understand that ICANN legal plans to post the draft PTI bylaws for comment early this week notwithstanding the fact that there are open issues in the draft based on the CWG input we have received to date. ICANN legal is suggesting that CWG can continue to raise its comments through the public comment period. Governance Chart: ICANN legal has also circulated a chart of certain governance provisions included in the PTI bylaws that are not directly addressed in the CWG proposal. We have annotated that chart with a column with our comments on those points. While the details of the PTI bylaws were not specified in the CWG proposal, we believe the approach being taken by CWG in the PTI bylaws on these governance matters is consistent with the intent of the CWG proposal. Annex C: In addition, we previously circulated a chart prepared by ICANN legal on their concerns with the incorporation of the Annex C provisions of the CWG proposal into the PTI bylaws. We have reattached that chart for your reference. The draft PTI bylaws circulated by ICANN legal do not include the Annex C language; instead the draft includes two paragraphs that ICANN legal included to address certain principles from Annex C. Next steps: Please let us know if you would like to discuss any of these items or if you would like us to summarize/map out the open issues. We can also be available to assist in the preparation of a comment letter from CWG assuming that ICANN posts this version of the PTI bylaws where open issues remain. Kind regards, Sharon SHARON R. FLANAGAN SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1 415 772 1271 <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> sflanagan@sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com> www.sidley.com <http://www2.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SIDLEY_150-AUTOSIG.png> **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************
Thanks Jonathan but I have major problems with the new PTI Bylaws text PTI is a service provider to the ccTLD Registry. The new text of Annex C is now empowering PTI to interpret local laws for cTLDs and risks destabalising existing registrants of current ccTLD Registries. The new language proposed for Annex C are not acceptable IMHO they risk the stable operation of ccTLD Registries and their ability to robustly serve their customers. This is a major change from the CWG proposal Best Paul Quoting Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>:
All
Please see below for Sidleyâs communication with the CWG Client Committee on the PTI Bylaws.
Apologies on behalf of the Client Committee that these were not shared with the CWG more promptly.
It seems to me that there are two key issues:
1. We need to understand the landscape of open issues â we will take input from Sidley in the CWG meeting today on these
2. We need assistance from Sidley in converting the summary / map of those issues into structured public comment on the PTI Bylaws.
Thank-you,
Jonathan
From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 11 July 2016 05:29 To: Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org> Subject: [client com] PTI Bylaws
Dear All,
Update on PTI Bylaws:
We have been working with ICANN legal on revisions to the PTI bylaws based on the input we have received from CWG. We had a call with ICANN legal on Friday afternoon and we circulated a revised draft of the PTI bylaws to ICANN legal on Saturday. On Sunday, ICANN legal circulated a further revised draft (marked to show changes from the Sidley draft), which is attached.
We understand that ICANN legal plans to post the draft PTI bylaws for comment early this week notwithstanding the fact that there are open issues in the draft based on the CWG input we have received to date. ICANN legal is suggesting that CWG can continue to raise its comments through the public comment period.
Governance Chart:
ICANN legal has also circulated a chart of certain governance provisions included in the PTI bylaws that are not directly addressed in the CWG proposal. We have annotated that chart with a column with our comments on those points. While the details of the PTI bylaws were not specified in the CWG proposal, we believe the approach being taken by CWG in the PTI bylaws on these governance matters is consistent with the intent of the CWG proposal.
Annex C:
In addition, we previously circulated a chart prepared by ICANN legal on their concerns with the incorporation of the Annex C provisions of the CWG proposal into the PTI bylaws. We have reattached that chart for your reference. The draft PTI bylaws circulated by ICANN legal do not include the Annex C language; instead the draft includes two paragraphs that ICANN legal included to address certain principles from Annex C.
Next steps:
Please let us know if you would like to discuss any of these items or if you would like us to summarize/map out the open issues. We can also be available to assist in the preparation of a comment letter from CWG assuming that ICANN posts this version of the PTI bylaws where open issues remain.
Kind regards,
Sharon
SHARON R. FLANAGAN
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1 415 772 1271 <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> sflanagan@sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com> www.sidley.com
<http://www2.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SIDLEY_150-AUTOSIG.png>
****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
Hi Paul, I assume you refer to the Annex C text as was proposed by Sidley and not to the text of the bylaws as they are published by ICANN for public comment. I also have a number of second thoughts about the Annex C proposed text as it may not always be - or at least open for interpretation as being not in line - with the current status quo with regard to ccTLD-IANA (& ICANN) relations. I therefore agree with ICANN’s suggestion not to use any of this text in the bylaws (we could still apart from that discuss if the purpose (art. 3 bylaws) is sufficient now) and to copy as literally as possible the relevant wording from the NTIA contract in the new ICANN - PTI contract. Best, Maarten On 14/07/16 12:19, "cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Paul M Kane - CWG" <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:
Thanks Jonathan but I have major problems with the new PTI Bylaws text
PTI is a service provider to the ccTLD Registry. The new text of Annex C is now empowering PTI to interpret local laws for cTLDs and risks destabalising existing registrants of current ccTLD Registries.
The new language proposed for Annex C are not acceptable IMHO they risk the stable operation of ccTLD Registries and their ability to robustly serve their customers.
This is a major change from the CWG proposal
Best
Paul
Quoting Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>:
All
Please see below for Sidley’s communication with the CWG Client Committee on the PTI Bylaws.
Apologies on behalf of the Client Committee that these were not shared with the CWG more promptly.
It seems to me that there are two key issues:
1. We need to understand the landscape of open issues – we will take input from Sidley in the CWG meeting today on these
2. We need assistance from Sidley in converting the summary / map of those issues into structured public comment on the PTI Bylaws.
Thank-you,
Jonathan
From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 11 July 2016 05:29 To: Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org> Subject: [client com] PTI Bylaws
Dear All,
Update on PTI Bylaws:
We have been working with ICANN legal on revisions to the PTI bylaws based on the input we have received from CWG. We had a call with ICANN legal on Friday afternoon and we circulated a revised draft of the PTI bylaws to ICANN legal on Saturday. On Sunday, ICANN legal circulated a further revised draft (marked to show changes from the Sidley draft), which is attached.
We understand that ICANN legal plans to post the draft PTI bylaws for comment early this week notwithstanding the fact that there are open issues in the draft based on the CWG input we have received to date. ICANN legal is suggesting that CWG can continue to raise its comments through the public comment period.
Governance Chart:
ICANN legal has also circulated a chart of certain governance provisions included in the PTI bylaws that are not directly addressed in the CWG proposal. We have annotated that chart with a column with our comments on those points. While the details of the PTI bylaws were not specified in the CWG proposal, we believe the approach being taken by CWG in the PTI bylaws on these governance matters is consistent with the intent of the CWG proposal.
Annex C:
In addition, we previously circulated a chart prepared by ICANN legal on their concerns with the incorporation of the Annex C provisions of the CWG proposal into the PTI bylaws. We have reattached that chart for your reference. The draft PTI bylaws circulated by ICANN legal do not include the Annex C language; instead the draft includes two paragraphs that ICANN legal included to address certain principles from Annex C.
Next steps:
Please let us know if you would like to discuss any of these items or if you would like us to summarize/map out the open issues. We can also be available to assist in the preparation of a comment letter from CWG assuming that ICANN posts this version of the PTI bylaws where open issues remain.
Kind regards,
Sharon
SHARON R. FLANAGAN
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1 415 772 1271 <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> sflanagan@sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com> www.sidley.com
<http://www2.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SIDLEY_150-AUTOSIG.png>
************************************************************************** **************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
************************************************************************** **************************
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Apologies. I may not make the call today, my UK Parliament Commissioner role is super hectic at the moment. Regards too all Paul On 14/07/16 11:19, Paul M Kane - CWG wrote:
Thanks Jonathan but I have major problems with the new PTI Bylaws text
PTI is a service provider to the ccTLD Registry. The new text of Annex C is now empowering PTI to interpret local laws for cTLDs and risks destabalising existing registrants of current ccTLD Registries.
The new language proposed for Annex C are not acceptable IMHO they risk the stable operation of ccTLD Registries and their ability to robustly serve their customers.
This is a major change from the CWG proposal
Best
Paul
Quoting Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>:
All
Please see below for Sidley’s communication with the CWG Client Committee on the PTI Bylaws.
Apologies on behalf of the Client Committee that these were not shared with the CWG more promptly.
It seems to me that there are two key issues:
1. We need to understand the landscape of open issues – we will take input from Sidley in the CWG meeting today on these
2. We need assistance from Sidley in converting the summary / map of those issues into structured public comment on the PTI Bylaws.
Thank-you,
Jonathan
From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 11 July 2016 05:29 To: Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org> Subject: [client com] PTI Bylaws
Dear All,
Update on PTI Bylaws:
We have been working with ICANN legal on revisions to the PTI bylaws based on the input we have received from CWG. We had a call with ICANN legal on Friday afternoon and we circulated a revised draft of the PTI bylaws to ICANN legal on Saturday. On Sunday, ICANN legal circulated a further revised draft (marked to show changes from the Sidley draft), which is attached.
We understand that ICANN legal plans to post the draft PTI bylaws for comment early this week notwithstanding the fact that there are open issues in the draft based on the CWG input we have received to date. ICANN legal is suggesting that CWG can continue to raise its comments through the public comment period.
Governance Chart:
ICANN legal has also circulated a chart of certain governance provisions included in the PTI bylaws that are not directly addressed in the CWG proposal. We have annotated that chart with a column with our comments on those points. While the details of the PTI bylaws were not specified in the CWG proposal, we believe the approach being taken by CWG in the PTI bylaws on these governance matters is consistent with the intent of the CWG proposal.
Annex C:
In addition, we previously circulated a chart prepared by ICANN legal on their concerns with the incorporation of the Annex C provisions of the CWG proposal into the PTI bylaws. We have reattached that chart for your reference. The draft PTI bylaws circulated by ICANN legal do not include the Annex C language; instead the draft includes two paragraphs that ICANN legal included to address certain principles from Annex C.
Next steps:
Please let us know if you would like to discuss any of these items or if you would like us to summarize/map out the open issues. We can also be available to assist in the preparation of a comment letter from CWG assuming that ICANN posts this version of the PTI bylaws where open issues remain.
Kind regards,
Sharon
SHARON R. FLANAGAN
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1 415 772 1271 <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> sflanagan@sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com> www.sidley.com
<http://www2.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SIDLEY_150-AUTOSIG.png>
****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hmm, that is a shame as we may need your input on the Annex C discussion as you were involved in the drafting of the final texts. Something we need to come back to later on than. On 14/07/16 16:04, "cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Paul M Kane" <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Paul.Kane@icb.co.uk> wrote:
Apologies. I may not make the call today, my UK Parliament Commissioner role is super hectic at the moment.
Regards too all
Paul
On 14/07/16 11:19, Paul M Kane - CWG wrote:
Thanks Jonathan but I have major problems with the new PTI Bylaws text
PTI is a service provider to the ccTLD Registry. The new text of Annex C is now empowering PTI to interpret local laws for cTLDs and risks destabalising existing registrants of current ccTLD Registries.
The new language proposed for Annex C are not acceptable IMHO they risk the stable operation of ccTLD Registries and their ability to robustly serve their customers.
This is a major change from the CWG proposal
Best
Paul
Quoting Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>:
All
Please see below for Sidley’s communication with the CWG Client Committee on the PTI Bylaws.
Apologies on behalf of the Client Committee that these were not shared with the CWG more promptly.
It seems to me that there are two key issues:
1. We need to understand the landscape of open issues – we will take input from Sidley in the CWG meeting today on these
2. We need assistance from Sidley in converting the summary / map of those issues into structured public comment on the PTI Bylaws.
Thank-you,
Jonathan
From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 11 July 2016 05:29 To: Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org> Subject: [client com] PTI Bylaws
Dear All,
Update on PTI Bylaws:
We have been working with ICANN legal on revisions to the PTI bylaws based on the input we have received from CWG. We had a call with ICANN legal on Friday afternoon and we circulated a revised draft of the PTI bylaws to ICANN legal on Saturday. On Sunday, ICANN legal circulated a further revised draft (marked to show changes from the Sidley draft), which is attached.
We understand that ICANN legal plans to post the draft PTI bylaws for comment early this week notwithstanding the fact that there are open issues in the draft based on the CWG input we have received to date. ICANN legal is suggesting that CWG can continue to raise its comments through the public comment period.
Governance Chart:
ICANN legal has also circulated a chart of certain governance provisions included in the PTI bylaws that are not directly addressed in the CWG proposal. We have annotated that chart with a column with our comments on those points. While the details of the PTI bylaws were not specified in the CWG proposal, we believe the approach being taken by CWG in the PTI bylaws on these governance matters is consistent with the intent of the CWG proposal.
Annex C:
In addition, we previously circulated a chart prepared by ICANN legal on their concerns with the incorporation of the Annex C provisions of the CWG proposal into the PTI bylaws. We have reattached that chart for your reference. The draft PTI bylaws circulated by ICANN legal do not include the Annex C language; instead the draft includes two paragraphs that ICANN legal included to address certain principles from Annex C.
Next steps:
Please let us know if you would like to discuss any of these items or if you would like us to summarize/map out the open issues. We can also be available to assist in the preparation of a comment letter from CWG assuming that ICANN posts this version of the PTI bylaws where open issues remain.
Kind regards,
Sharon
SHARON R. FLANAGAN
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1 415 772 1271 <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> sflanagan@sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com> www.sidley.com
<http://www2.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SIDLEY_150-AUTOSIG.png>
************************************************************************* ***************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
************************************************************************* ***************************
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I might be missing something, but I never thought that the Annex C text ("Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship for Names Functions") was supposed to be made a part of the PTI Bylaws, or any other governance document. That also does not appear to be what Sidley is proposing either. Rather Annex C is supposed to be a benchmark or checklist for our work, including the implementation of our work. That is how Sidley is using Annex C, as far as I can tell. Since Annex C was finalized and agreed by the CWG, it would seem to be an appropriate use of the document, and that any deviation from the agreed concepts of Annex C would require significant deliberation by the CWG. Am i missing something? Greg On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Paul M Kane <Paul.Kane@icb.co.uk> wrote:
Apologies. I may not make the call today, my UK Parliament Commissioner role is super hectic at the moment.
Regards too all
Paul
On 14/07/16 11:19, Paul M Kane - CWG wrote:
Thanks Jonathan but I have major problems with the new PTI Bylaws text
PTI is a service provider to the ccTLD Registry. The new text of Annex C is now empowering PTI to interpret local laws for cTLDs and risks destabalising existing registrants of current ccTLD Registries.
The new language proposed for Annex C are not acceptable IMHO they risk the stable operation of ccTLD Registries and their ability to robustly serve their customers.
This is a major change from the CWG proposal
Best
Paul
Quoting Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>:
All
Please see below for Sidley’s communication with the CWG Client Committee on the PTI Bylaws.
Apologies on behalf of the Client Committee that these were not shared with the CWG more promptly.
It seems to me that there are two key issues:
1. We need to understand the landscape of open issues – we will take input from Sidley in the CWG meeting today on these
2. We need assistance from Sidley in converting the summary / map of those issues into structured public comment on the PTI Bylaws.
Thank-you,
Jonathan
From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 11 July 2016 05:29 To: Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org> Subject: [client com] PTI Bylaws
Dear All,
Update on PTI Bylaws:
We have been working with ICANN legal on revisions to the PTI bylaws based on the input we have received from CWG. We had a call with ICANN legal on Friday afternoon and we circulated a revised draft of the PTI bylaws to ICANN legal on Saturday. On Sunday, ICANN legal circulated a further revised draft (marked to show changes from the Sidley draft), which is attached.
We understand that ICANN legal plans to post the draft PTI bylaws for comment early this week notwithstanding the fact that there are open issues in the draft based on the CWG input we have received to date. ICANN legal is suggesting that CWG can continue to raise its comments through the public comment period.
Governance Chart:
ICANN legal has also circulated a chart of certain governance provisions included in the PTI bylaws that are not directly addressed in the CWG proposal. We have annotated that chart with a column with our comments on those points. While the details of the PTI bylaws were not specified in the CWG proposal, we believe the approach being taken by CWG in the PTI bylaws on these governance matters is consistent with the intent of the CWG proposal.
Annex C:
In addition, we previously circulated a chart prepared by ICANN legal on their concerns with the incorporation of the Annex C provisions of the CWG proposal into the PTI bylaws. We have reattached that chart for your reference. The draft PTI bylaws circulated by ICANN legal do not include the Annex C language; instead the draft includes two paragraphs that ICANN legal included to address certain principles from Annex C.
Next steps:
Please let us know if you would like to discuss any of these items or if you would like us to summarize/map out the open issues. We can also be available to assist in the preparation of a comment letter from CWG assuming that ICANN posts this version of the PTI bylaws where open issues remain.
Kind regards,
Sharon
SHARON R. FLANAGAN
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1 415 772 1271 <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> sflanagan@sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com> www.sidley.com
< http://www2.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SIDLEY_150-AUTOSIG.png>
****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi Paul, all, I'm not sure I agree with you, Paul. I do not think that the IANA functions operator is empowered to interpret laws and I am pretty certain that the current operator does not want that role. If there is any doubt, the IANA functions operator refers back to country for information about the law and the result of the legal processes. The issue is really more to do with the complexity of the relations, which makes it hard to write bylaws. However, the draft - "shall respect the diversity of customers" - would seem to cover this without opening it for PTI to ignore agreed policy. If it doesn't, it would be helpful to have a proposal that does not open up the role of PTI. Thanks Martin -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: 14 July 2016 11:20 To: jrobinson@afilias.info Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] PTI Bylaws Thanks Jonathan but I have major problems with the new PTI Bylaws text PTI is a service provider to the ccTLD Registry. The new text of Annex C is now empowering PTI to interpret local laws for cTLDs and risks destabilising existing registrants of current ccTLD Registries. The new language proposed for Annex C are not acceptable IMHO they risk the stable operation of ccTLD Registries and their ability to robustly serve their customers. This is a major change from the CWG proposal Best Paul Quoting Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>:
All
Please see below for Sidley’s communication with the CWG Client Committee on the PTI Bylaws.
Apologies on behalf of the Client Committee that these were not shared with the CWG more promptly.
It seems to me that there are two key issues:
1. We need to understand the landscape of open issues – we will take input from Sidley in the CWG meeting today on these
2. We need assistance from Sidley in converting the summary / map of those issues into structured public comment on the PTI Bylaws.
Thank-you,
Jonathan
From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 11 July 2016 05:29 To: Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org> Subject: [client com] PTI Bylaws
Dear All,
Update on PTI Bylaws:
We have been working with ICANN legal on revisions to the PTI bylaws based on the input we have received from CWG. We had a call with ICANN legal on Friday afternoon and we circulated a revised draft of the PTI bylaws to ICANN legal on Saturday. On Sunday, ICANN legal circulated a further revised draft (marked to show changes from the Sidley draft), which is attached.
We understand that ICANN legal plans to post the draft PTI bylaws for comment early this week notwithstanding the fact that there are open issues in the draft based on the CWG input we have received to date. ICANN legal is suggesting that CWG can continue to raise its comments through the public comment period.
Governance Chart:
ICANN legal has also circulated a chart of certain governance provisions included in the PTI bylaws that are not directly addressed in the CWG proposal. We have annotated that chart with a column with our comments on those points. While the details of the PTI bylaws were not specified in the CWG proposal, we believe the approach being taken by CWG in the PTI bylaws on these governance matters is consistent with the intent of the CWG proposal.
Annex C:
In addition, we previously circulated a chart prepared by ICANN legal on their concerns with the incorporation of the Annex C provisions of the CWG proposal into the PTI bylaws. We have reattached that chart for your reference. The draft PTI bylaws circulated by ICANN legal do not include the Annex C language; instead the draft includes two paragraphs that ICANN legal included to address certain principles from Annex C.
Next steps:
Please let us know if you would like to discuss any of these items or if you would like us to summarize/map out the open issues. We can also be available to assist in the preparation of a comment letter from CWG assuming that ICANN posts this version of the PTI bylaws where open issues remain.
Kind regards,
Sharon
SHARON R. FLANAGAN
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1 415 772 1271 <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> sflanagan@sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com> www.sidley.com
<http://www2.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SIDLEY_150-AUTOSIG.png
****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Correct - I am saying that IANA should NOT interpret local laws...... The Registry operator must accord with the laws of the jurisdiction in which they are based - and nothing must be done to undermine the standing of the Registry. So the Registry updates the IANA and local accountability to applicable laws rules - IANA is simply the record keeper. This is how it has always been (unless there is a ccTLD Registry Contract with ICANN that says otherwise). I agree "shall respect the diversity of customers"! I am very stretched on time at the moment - I will respond more fully asap. Best Paul On 18/07/16 19:02, Martin Boyle wrote:
Hi Paul, all,
I'm not sure I agree with you, Paul. I do not think that the IANA functions operator is empowered to interpret laws and I am pretty certain that the current operator does not want that role. If there is any doubt, the IANA functions operator refers back to country for information about the law and the result of the legal processes.
The issue is really more to do with the complexity of the relations, which makes it hard to write bylaws. However, the draft - "shall respect the diversity of customers" - would seem to cover this without opening it for PTI to ignore agreed policy.
If it doesn't, it would be helpful to have a proposal that does not open up the role of PTI.
Thanks
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: 14 July 2016 11:20 To: jrobinson@afilias.info Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] PTI Bylaws
Thanks Jonathan but I have major problems with the new PTI Bylaws text
PTI is a service provider to the ccTLD Registry. The new text of Annex C is now empowering PTI to interpret local laws for cTLDs and risks destabilising existing registrants of current ccTLD Registries.
The new language proposed for Annex C are not acceptable IMHO they risk the stable operation of ccTLD Registries and their ability to robustly serve their customers.
This is a major change from the CWG proposal
Best
Paul
Quoting Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>:
All
Please see below for Sidley’s communication with the CWG Client Committee on the PTI Bylaws.
Apologies on behalf of the Client Committee that these were not shared with the CWG more promptly.
It seems to me that there are two key issues:
1. We need to understand the landscape of open issues – we will take input from Sidley in the CWG meeting today on these
2. We need assistance from Sidley in converting the summary / map of those issues into structured public comment on the PTI Bylaws.
Thank-you,
Jonathan
From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 11 July 2016 05:29 To: Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org> Subject: [client com] PTI Bylaws
Dear All,
Update on PTI Bylaws:
We have been working with ICANN legal on revisions to the PTI bylaws based on the input we have received from CWG. We had a call with ICANN legal on Friday afternoon and we circulated a revised draft of the PTI bylaws to ICANN legal on Saturday. On Sunday, ICANN legal circulated a further revised draft (marked to show changes from the Sidley draft), which is attached.
We understand that ICANN legal plans to post the draft PTI bylaws for comment early this week notwithstanding the fact that there are open issues in the draft based on the CWG input we have received to date. ICANN legal is suggesting that CWG can continue to raise its comments through the public comment period.
Governance Chart:
ICANN legal has also circulated a chart of certain governance provisions included in the PTI bylaws that are not directly addressed in the CWG proposal. We have annotated that chart with a column with our comments on those points. While the details of the PTI bylaws were not specified in the CWG proposal, we believe the approach being taken by CWG in the PTI bylaws on these governance matters is consistent with the intent of the CWG proposal.
Annex C:
In addition, we previously circulated a chart prepared by ICANN legal on their concerns with the incorporation of the Annex C provisions of the CWG proposal into the PTI bylaws. We have reattached that chart for your reference. The draft PTI bylaws circulated by ICANN legal do not include the Annex C language; instead the draft includes two paragraphs that ICANN legal included to address certain principles from Annex C.
Next steps:
Please let us know if you would like to discuss any of these items or if you would like us to summarize/map out the open issues. We can also be available to assist in the preparation of a comment letter from CWG assuming that ICANN posts this version of the PTI bylaws where open issues remain.
Kind regards,
Sharon
SHARON R. FLANAGAN
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1 415 772 1271 <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> sflanagan@sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com> www.sidley.com
<http://www2.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SIDLEY_150-AUTOSIG.png
****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Paul, Can you point to the specific text that concerns you regarding interpreting local laws? Thanks! Greg On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Paul M Kane <Paul.Kane@icb.co.uk> wrote:
Correct - I am saying that IANA should NOT interpret local laws......
The Registry operator must accord with the laws of the jurisdiction in which they are based - and nothing must be done to undermine the standing of the Registry. So the Registry updates the IANA and local accountability to applicable laws rules - IANA is simply the record keeper. This is how it has always been (unless there is a ccTLD Registry Contract with ICANN that says otherwise).
I agree "shall respect the diversity of customers"!
I am very stretched on time at the moment - I will respond more fully asap.
Best
Paul
On 18/07/16 19:02, Martin Boyle wrote:
Hi Paul, all,
I'm not sure I agree with you, Paul. I do not think that the IANA functions operator is empowered to interpret laws and I am pretty certain that the current operator does not want that role. If there is any doubt, the IANA functions operator refers back to country for information about the law and the result of the legal processes.
The issue is really more to do with the complexity of the relations, which makes it hard to write bylaws. However, the draft - "shall respect the diversity of customers" - would seem to cover this without opening it for PTI to ignore agreed policy.
If it doesn't, it would be helpful to have a proposal that does not open up the role of PTI.
Thanks
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: 14 July 2016 11:20 To: jrobinson@afilias.info Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] PTI Bylaws
Thanks Jonathan but I have major problems with the new PTI Bylaws text
PTI is a service provider to the ccTLD Registry. The new text of Annex C is now empowering PTI to interpret local laws for cTLDs and risks destabilising existing registrants of current ccTLD Registries.
The new language proposed for Annex C are not acceptable IMHO they risk the stable operation of ccTLD Registries and their ability to robustly serve their customers.
This is a major change from the CWG proposal
Best
Paul
Quoting Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>:
All
Please see below for Sidley’s communication with the CWG Client Committee on the PTI Bylaws.
Apologies on behalf of the Client Committee that these were not shared with the CWG more promptly.
It seems to me that there are two key issues:
1. We need to understand the landscape of open issues – we will take input from Sidley in the CWG meeting today on these
2. We need assistance from Sidley in converting the summary / map of those issues into structured public comment on the PTI Bylaws.
Thank-you,
Jonathan
From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 11 July 2016 05:29 To: Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org> Subject: [client com] PTI Bylaws
Dear All,
Update on PTI Bylaws:
We have been working with ICANN legal on revisions to the PTI bylaws based on the input we have received from CWG. We had a call with ICANN legal on Friday afternoon and we circulated a revised draft of the PTI bylaws to ICANN legal on Saturday. On Sunday, ICANN legal circulated a further revised draft (marked to show changes from the Sidley draft), which is attached.
We understand that ICANN legal plans to post the draft PTI bylaws for comment early this week notwithstanding the fact that there are open issues in the draft based on the CWG input we have received to date. ICANN legal is suggesting that CWG can continue to raise its comments through the public comment period.
Governance Chart:
ICANN legal has also circulated a chart of certain governance provisions included in the PTI bylaws that are not directly addressed in the CWG proposal. We have annotated that chart with a column with our comments on those points. While the details of the PTI bylaws were not specified in the CWG proposal, we believe the approach being taken by CWG in the PTI bylaws on these governance matters is consistent with the intent of the CWG proposal.
Annex C:
In addition, we previously circulated a chart prepared by ICANN legal on their concerns with the incorporation of the Annex C provisions of the CWG proposal into the PTI bylaws. We have reattached that chart for your reference. The draft PTI bylaws circulated by ICANN legal do not include the Annex C language; instead the draft includes two paragraphs that ICANN legal included to address certain principles from Annex C.
Next steps:
Please let us know if you would like to discuss any of these items or if you would like us to summarize/map out the open issues. We can also be available to assist in the preparation of a comment letter from CWG assuming that ICANN posts this version of the PTI bylaws where open issues remain.
Kind regards,
Sharon
SHARON R. FLANAGAN
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1 415 772 1271 <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> sflanagan@sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com> www.sidley.com
<http://www2.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SIDLEY_150-AUTOSIG.png
****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
participants (6)
-
Greg Shatan -
Jonathan Robinson -
Maarten Simon -
Martin Boyle -
Paul M Kane -
Paul M Kane - CWG