[CCWG-ACCT] WP2 Issues from last night's call

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Becky
Thank you for reply
But the qualifiers are subject to whose judgement? ICANN? OR the Community.
If these two composed  qualifier are an option for ICANN to decide how
reasonably appropriate  achieve the mission's objhectives, If they do not
avcheive those objectives reasonably appropriate  they could claim that it
was  neither reasonable nor appropriate to do so.
Whether the text was or was not subject to public comments , I do not care.
It is wrong at this stage
You put the acheivement of the mission subject to judgement of ICANN as
being reasonably appropriate to acheive or not.
Please read the text carefully or consult other lawyers
Kavouss


2015-11-03 21:56 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>:

> Confused Martin – none of the language re names has changed for months
> Martin, other than changing "Domain names (forming a system referred to
> as "DNS”)” to "names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (“DNS”).
> Otherwise the language remains exactly the same.
>
> J. Beckwith Burr
> Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>
>
> From: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk>
> Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 12:35 PM
> To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>, Accountability Community <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>, Andrew Sullivan <
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>, "iab at iab.org" <iab at iab.org>
> Subject: RE: WP2 Issues from last night's call
>
> Becky, all,
>
>
>
> I’m sorry, but I have some concerns with the text as it has evolved for
> (new 1) the names part of the mission statement.  Not having been on
> today’s call, this might have been covered.  However, the new wording does
> seem to me to extend the role of ICANN for ccTLDs.
>
>
>
> For ccTLDs the ICANN policy role is limited to root-zone issues and those
> that can be directly linked to security, stability and resilience of the
> DNS.  The new wording appears to me to broaden the coverage.
>
>
>
> First bullet:  “reasonably necessary to facilitate openness,
> interoperability [and/or] security…”:  I’m not sure I know what reasonably
> necessary means, but in association with the qualities, it could easily be
> interpreted as harmonising on specific requirements.  Could we think of
> some wording that limits the potential for mission creep?  How about, “For
> which coordinated resolution is appropriate and necessary to facilitate
> resilience, security and/or stability.”?
>
>
>
> Second bullet:  I have significant concerns about the word “designed.”
> Could we replace the bullet with, “That are developed through a bottom-up,
> consensus-based multi-stakeholder process and that are necessary to ensure
> the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique names system.”?
>
>
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Burr,
> Becky
> *Sent:* 03 November 2015 15:14
> *To:* Accountability Community; Andrew Sullivan; iab at iab.org
> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] WP2 Issues from last night's call
>
>
>
> I’ve attached a revised deck trying to lay out our conclusions from last
> night.
>
>
>
> 1.  We concluded to resolve the support/coordinate problem by eliminating
> the chapeau in the Mission Statement.  See Slide 1 and the side-by-side
> document
>
> 2.  Kavouss strongly urged us to modify the language of the regulatory
> preclusion.  I have taken a shot at that in purple in the side-by-side
> document
>
> 3.  Greg Shatan proposed a modification to the contracting language also
> reflected in purple on slide 2
>
> 4.  We agreed to put transparency points 1 and 2 in WS1 and to address
> points 3 and 4 as part of WS2.
>
>
>
> Becky
>
>
>
>
>
> J. Beckwith Burr
>
> Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151103/e58805ea/attachment.html>