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

Burr, Becky Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
Wed Nov 4 21:56:40 UTC 2015


Maybe we should include a reference to the Consensus and Temporary Policies Specification.  Remember, this is not Bylaws language, rather it is instruction to drafting lawyers.


J. Beckwith Burr
Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer


From: <Metalitz>, Steven Metalitz <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>>
Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 4:36 PM
To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com>>, 'Malcolm Hutty' <malcolm at linx.net<mailto:malcolm at linx.net>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] WP2 Issues from last night's call

The argument is serious because the proposal is to amend the Mission to exclude “regulation of services that use unique identifiers.”  This brings me back to the question whether domain name registration is such a service, and then Bradley’s question whether registrar accreditation is a regulation of that service.  There certainly seems to be a serious argument that the answer to each question is “yes,”  and if so, then this change to ICANN’s mission would bring into serious question ICANN’s authority to continue registrar accreditation --- without regard to the fact that, under a Mission statement that always lacked the ban on “regulation of services,” ICANN has “always accredited.”

From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 4:26 PM
To: Silver, Bradley; Metalitz, Steven; 'Malcolm Hutty'; Alan Greenberg; Accountability Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] WP2 Issues from last night's call

This argument doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.  ICANN has always accredited – both registries and registrars.  Is there a serious argument to be had that this is outside the Mission?

J. Beckwith Burr
Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer


From: <Silver>, Bradley <Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com>>
Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 4:20 PM
To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, Steven Metalitz <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>>, 'Malcolm Hutty' <malcolm at linx.net<mailto:malcolm at linx.net>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] WP2 Issues from last night's call

Thank you for pointing that out, Becky.   Do you think it’s clear that the role of “coordinator” of the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the DNS, unequivocally covers the activity of accreditation of services that use the internet’s unique identifiers?  Even with the added language covering enforcement of contracts, I think there is significant potential for confusion about how to reconcile what ICANN is empowered to do on the one hand (coordinate), but forbidden from doing on the other (regulate).   The plain meaning of “regulate” seems to clearly cover (and therefore prohibit) the activity of accreditation – even when read alongside the earlier reference to ICANN’s function as “coordinator”.   Some might argue that ICANN can and should fulfill its mission as coordinator without engaging in activities that amount to “regulation”-  including accreditation, but possibly other oversight activities that could be understood as exceeding its powers of coordination.

From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 3:46 PM
To: Silver, Bradley; Metalitz, Steven; 'Malcolm Hutty'; Alan Greenberg; Accountability Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] WP2 Issues from last night's call

Taking off Andrew and the IAB folks as this is not their issue

W    As part of this process we have captured and imported the essence of the "picket fence” - the “what” (as opposed to the “how”) of Consensus Policy  (Section 1.2 of the Consensus and Temporary Policies spec) into ICANN's Mission statement for names (ICANN’s Mission for names covers issues for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS).  That means that issues that fall into the so-called “picket fence” are within ICANN’s Mission.  That has been functionally true via the registry and registrar agreements since the beginning of ICANN time.  We have just made this a bylaw fact.  Section 1.3 of the Spec gives examples

Se

S
J. Beckwith Burr
Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer


From: <Silver>, Bradley <Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com>>
Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 12:02 PM
To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, Steven Metalitz <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>>, 'Malcolm Hutty' <malcolm at linx.net<mailto:malcolm at linx.net>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>>, "iab at iab.org<mailto:iab at iab.org>" <iab at iab.org<mailto:iab at iab.org>>
Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] WP2 Issues from last night's call

Becky and all – I’m new to this thread but have been following this issue for some time.  I’m still confused as to how Spec 1 clarifies the “regulation” language.  If spec 1 says ICANN can do something by way of consensus policy making, does that trump what the bylaws say ICANN can do?   Bylaws trump, don’t they?

Bradley Silver
Chief Intellectual PropertyCounsel |Time Warner Inc.
One Time Warner Center New York, NY 10019-8016 | P: 212 484 8869  | F: 212 658 9293
[cid:image004.png at 01D11648.738D46F0]



From:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 11:33 AM
To: Metalitz, Steven; 'Malcolm Hutty'; Alan Greenberg; Accountability Community; Andrew Sullivan; iab at iab.org<mailto:iab at iab.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] WP2 Issues from last night's call

For some reason the Consensus/Temporary Policy Spec is Spec 4 in the RAA.  Note that Section 1.2 outlines the topics that are fair game for consensus policies, which includes “resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain names (as opposed to the use of such domain names, but including where such policies take into account use of the domain names)  Section 1.3 gives specific examples (without limitation), including "reservation of registered names in a TLD that may not be registered initially or that may not be renewed due to reasons reasonably related to (i) avoidance of confusion among or misleading of users, (ii) intellectual property, or (iii) the technical management of the DNS or the Internet (e.g., establishment of reservations of names from registration)"

CONSENSUS POLICIES AND TEMPORARY POLICIES SPECIFICATION

?         Consensus Policies.

1.1. "Consensus Policies" are those policies established (1) pursuant to the procedure set forth inICANN's Bylaws and due process, and (2) covering those topics listed in Section 1.2 of this document. The Consensus Policy development process and procedure set forth in ICANN's Bylaws may be revised from time to time in accordance with the process set forth therein.

1.2. Consensus Policies and the procedures by which they are developed shall be designed to produce, to the extent possible, a consensus of Internet stakeholders, including registrars.  Consensus Policies shall relate to one or more of the following:

1.2.1. issues for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate interoperability, security and/or stability of the Internet, Registrar Services, Registry Services, or the Domain Name System ("DNS");

1.2.2. functional and performance specifications for the provision of Registrar Services;

1.2.3. registrar policies reasonably necessary to implement Consensus Policies relating to a gTLD registry;

1.2.4. resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain names (as opposed to the use of such domain names, but including where such policies take into account use of the domain names); or

1.2.5. restrictions on cross-ownership of registry operators and registrars or Resellers and regulations and restrictions with respect to registrar and registry operations and the use of registry and registrar data in the event that a registry operator and a registrar or Reseller are affiliated.

1.3. Such categories of issues referred to in Section 1.2 shall include, without limitation:

1.3.1. principles for allocation of registered names in a TLD (e.g., first-come/first-served, timely renewal, holding period after expiration);

1.3.2. prohibitions on warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registries or registrars;

1.3.3. reservation of registered names in a TLD that may not be registered initially or that may not be renewed due to reasons reasonably related to (i) avoidance of confusion among or misleading of users, (ii) intellectual property, or (iii) the technical management of the DNS or the Internet (e.g., establishment of reservations of names from registration);

1.3.4. maintenance of and access to accurate and up-to-date information concerning Registered Names and name servers;

1.3.5. procedures to avoid disruptions of domain name registrations due to suspension or termination of operations by a registry operator or a registrar, including procedures for allocation of responsibility among continuing registrars of the Registered Names sponsored in aTLD by a registrar losing accreditation; and

1.3.6. the transfer of registration data upon a change in registrar sponsoring one or more Registered Names.

1.4. In addition to the other limitations on Consensus Policies, they shall not:

1.4.1. prescribe or limit the price of Registrar Services;

1.4.2. modify the limitations on Temporary Policies (defined below) or Consensus Policies;

1.4.3. modify the provisions in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement regarding terms or conditions for the renewal, termination or amendment of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement or fees paid by Registrar to ICANN; or

1.4.4. modify ICANN's obligations to not apply standards, policies, procedures or practices arbitrarily, unjustifiably, or inequitably and to not single out Registrar for disparate treatment unless justified by substantial and reasonable cause, and exercise its responsibilities in an open and transparent manner.

?         Temporary Policies. Registrar shall comply with and implement all specifications or policies established by the ICANN Board of Directors (the "Board") on a temporary basis, if adopted by the Board by a vote of at least two-thirds of its members, so long as the Board reasonably determines that such modifications or amendments are justified and that immediate temporary establishment of a specification or policy on the subject is necessary to maintain the stability or security of Registrar Services, Registry Services or the DNS or the Internet ("Temporary Policies").

2.1. Such proposed specification or policy shall be as narrowly tailored as feasible to achieve those objectives. In establishing any Temporary Policy, the Board shall state the period of time for which the Temporary Policy is adopted and shall immediately implement the Consensus Policy development process set forth in ICANN's Bylaws.

2.1.1. ICANN shall also issue an advisory statement containing a detailed explanation of its reasons for adopting the Temporary Policy and why the Board believes such Temporary Policy should receive the consensus support of Internet stakeholders.

2.1.2. If the period of time for which the Temporary Policy is adopted exceeds 90 days, the Board shall reaffirm its temporary adoption every 90 days for a total period not to exceed one year, in order to maintain such Temporary Policy in effect until such time as it becomes aConsensus Policy. If the one year period expires or, if during such one year period, the Temporary Policy does not become a Consensus Policy and is not reaffirmed by the Board, Registrar shall no longer be required to comply with or implement such Temporary Policy.

?         Notice and Conflicts. Registrar shall be afforded a reasonable period of time following notice of the establishment of a Consensus Policy or Temporary Policy in which to comply with such policy or specification, taking into account any urgency involved. In the event of a conflict between Registrar Services and Consensus Policies or any Temporary Policy, the Consensus Polices or Temporary Policy shall control, but only with respect to subject matter in conflict. For the avoidance of doubt,Consensus Policies that meet the requirements of this Specification may supplement or supersede provisions of the agreements between Registrar and ICANN, but only to the extent that suchConsensus Policies relate to the matters set forth in Section 1.2 and 1.3 of this Specification.


J. Beckwith Burr
Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer


From: <Metalitz>, Steven Metalitz <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>>
Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 11:03 AM
To: 'Malcolm Hutty' <malcolm at linx.net<mailto:malcolm at linx.net>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>>, "iab at iab.org<mailto:iab at iab.org>" <iab at iab.org<mailto:iab at iab.org>>
Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] WP2 Issues from last night's call

Malcolm, can you explain how domain name registration is not a “service that uses the Internet’s unique identifiers”?

Steve Metalitz

From:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 10:59 AM
To: Alan Greenberg; Burr, Becky; Accountability Community; Andrew Sullivan; iab at iab.org<mailto:iab at iab.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] WP2 Issues from last night's call



On 04/11/2015 14:17, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> In the regulatory section, I would still like to see language that
> explicitly says that the unique identifiers themselves are deemed to not
> be "content".

Alan,

If you read the clause carefully, you will see that it does not say that
ICANN cannot regulate Internet content; that's just a loose paraphrasing
some people have been using in conversation.

Instead, it says that ICANN "shall not regulate
services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that
such services carry or provide."

So the target of that exclusion is not "content" but "services" and "the
content that such services carry or provide". This neatly avoids the
question of whether domain names are content, because even if they are,
they are still outside the reach of that exclusion.

Malcolm.
--
Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx.net_&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=yv-2vaZRUToupIoctB5N26jR1-FX1R8g20SyyjFmT-8&s=A8DtJCyVMLau-WRON7AQ_czu4FzwQSRY5CwKB3_lfYQ&e=>

London Internet Exchange Ltd
Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ

Company Registered in England No. 3137929
Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA


_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=yv-2vaZRUToupIoctB5N26jR1-FX1R8g20SyyjFmT-8&s=iCNwcPAMpoUQGaoDRWeh9IT72SUScm3T-i7MFMaS454&e=>

=================================================================
This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the
addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding,
or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on
the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom
he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in
error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies
from your computer or storage system. Thank you.
=================================================================

=================================================================
This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the
addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding,
or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on
the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom
he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in
error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies
from your computer or storage system. Thank you.
=================================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151104/e3a987f2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8607 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151104/e3a987f2/image001-0001.png>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list