[CCWG-ACCT] Mission Statement language regarding grandfathering

Malcolm Hutty malcolm at linx.net
Sat Dec 5 12:53:03 UTC 2015


It shouldn't be possible to amend these contracts to insert new provisions that are outside the scope of the Mission that don't currently exist in these contracts. 

> On 4 Dec 2015, at 20:23, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:
> 
> The contracts explicitly provide for amendment and renewal, so I don’t see how a fair reading of the text precludes either amendment or renewal.  That said, the note to drafters in the current draft specifically contemplates Spec 4 of the existing RAA and Spec 1 of the existing RA to be within ICANN’s Mission, which when the drafters are done should be reflected in ICANN’s Bylaws.  Accordingly, the Mission could not be modified by amending the RA or the RAA.  (And we will fix the fact that the side by side which reflects the existing spec language and which is specifically referenced in the Proposal was not attached as it was clearly meant to be)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J. Beckwith Burr 
> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
> Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
> 
> 
> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> Date: Friday, December 4, 2015 at 11:04 AM
> To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Mission Statement language regarding grandfathering
> 
> Becky, the current registry agreement is renewable every 10 years. Does this term impact the ability of ICANN and registry to renew an existing contract.
> 
> Related to this, the RAA is alterable by negotiation between the parties. Does this term alter tha ability of ICANN and Registrars to continueto use terms in the contract which are not subject to Spec 4?
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 04/12/2015 10:16 AM, Burr, Becky wrote:
> 
>> I want to circulate what I believe is the agreed upon language regarding grandfathering, just to make sure we are all on the same page.  Not quite sure how we will be handling post-publication changes like this – we will probably need to discuss on the next CCWG call.  But in the meanwhile, I want to capture the state of our discussion.
>> 
>> 
>> 3.     For the avoidance of uncertainty, the language of existing registry agreements and registrar accreditation agreements should be grandfathered.  This means that the parties who entered into existing contracts intended (and intend) to be bound by those  agreements.  It means that neither a contracting party nor anyone else should be able to bring a case that any provisions of such agreements on their face are ultra vires.  It does not, however, modify any contracting party’s right to challenge the other party¹s interpretation of that language. It does not modify the right of any person or entity materially affected (as defined in the Bylaws) by an action or inaction in violation ICANN¹s Bylaws to seek redress through an IRP.  Nor does it modify the scope of ICANN’s Mission.
>> 
>> J. Beckwith Burr 
>> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
>> Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151205/1aba8d8b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list