[CCWG-ACCT] [bylaws-coord] Clarification of today's directions and Questions for Tomorrow
Nigel Roberts
nigel at channelisles.net
Tue Apr 12 12:26:45 UTC 2016
I do not think it is.
It is not for ICANN to specify rules that determines, how, for example.
nigelroberts.uk.com is delegated or operates. (Hypothetical example).
On 12/04/16 13:04, Greg Shatan wrote:
> I will have difficulty making today's call.
>
> On the first point, it needs to be clear - here or elsewhere - that it's
> within ICANN 's mission to make policy and enter into contracts
> regarding names beyond the top level. If taking out "in the root zone"
> does that, we need to do that. If it's clear elsewhere, then okay.
>
> Greg
>
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear Mathieu
> Tks for your kind efforts and positive reply ti my request
> I hope lawyers would implement that and would not be biased by some
> specific attempts of sone parties
> We will see to what extent your instructions will be practically
> followed.
> Kavousd
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 12 Apr 2016, at 10:50, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mathieu.weill at afnic.fr');>> wrote:
>
>> Dear Kavouss, ____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> We have concluded that our direction to lawyers was to be as close
>> as possible to the wording of the report. ____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> I believe this is consistent with your concern. ____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> Best____
>>
>> Mathieu____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> *De :*Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com');>]
>> *Envoyé :* mardi 12 avril 2016 09:03
>> *À :* Mathieu Weill
>> *Cc :* Accountability Cross Community
>> *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Clarification of
>> today's directions and Questions for Tomorrow____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> Dear Mathieu,____
>>
>> The co-chairs must be careful about the attempts of some people
>> through some means succeed to include in the draft the
>> inappropriate expansion of limited scope of CARVE-out.____
>>
>> I think this is not an issue which we should leave at the mercy of
>> lawyers because you said the issue was entrusted to them____
>>
>> That statement is totally wrong____
>>
>> CCWG never ever give full liberty to any authority TO DISTORT the
>> text of the supplemental proposal on the ground that they are
>> lawyers.____
>>
>> The authenticity of the text when converted to Bylaws must be
>> fully preserved.____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> ____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> 2016-04-12 8:48 GMT+02:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mathieu.weill at afnic.fr');>>:____
>>
>> Dear Colleagues, ____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> Forwarding a couple of follow up clarifications requested by our
>> lawyers. To be discussed during our call in a few hours. ____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> *De :*bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org');>
>> [mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org');>]
>> *De la part de* Gregory, Holly via bylaws-coord
>> *Envoyé :* mardi 12 avril 2016 01:02
>> *À :* Bernard Turcotte; bylaws-coord at icann.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bylaws-coord at icann.org');>
>> *Cc :* Sidley ICANN CCWG; ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ICANN at adlercolvin.com');>
>> *Objet :* [bylaws-coord] Clarification of today's directions and
>> Questions for Tomorrow____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> We eagerly await the certified instructions from today’s call.
>> Please be sure to clarify treatment of the question regarding HR
>> FOI Section 27.3. We understand that the Human Rights provision
>> is to be moved from the transitional bylaws into the Core Values
>> section, but we are unclear as to the outcome of the issues raised
>> by Ed and David regarding enforcement. ____
>>
>> **____
>>
>> *For Discussion*____
>>
>> **____
>>
>> *A. On the call today the CCWG agreed to include in the bylaw
>> language the phrase “the root zone of” in Article 1, Section
>> 1.1.a.i*____
>>
>> *The remaining open issue on this question is whether “root zone”
>> needs to be defined, as highlighted in yellow below from the
>> original question:*____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> 1. The latest draft text for Article 1, Section 1.1.a.i describes
>> ICANN’s naming mission as follows: “Coordinates the allocation and
>> assignment of names in the Domain Name System …” This text differs
>> from the conceptual language proposed in Annex 05 – Recommendation
>> #5, which read as follows: “Coordinates the allocation and
>> assignment of names in*the root zone of* the Domain Name System
>> ….” The words “the root zone of” do not appear in the current
>> ICANN Bylaws, which states that ICANN “Coordinates the allocation
>> and assignment of […] Domain names” (without any qualifier or
>> limitation to “the root zone of”). It is not true that ICANN
>> coordinates assignment ONLY in the root zone, as such term is
>> currently understood. ICANN’s gTLD registry and registrar
>> agreements and policies deal substantially and primarily with
>> issues relating to assignment of names at the second (and in some
>> cases lower) levels of the DNS. If in the root zone is currently
>> intended to include the second level, that should be clarified in
>> the use of the term. For example, the UDRP, the Inter-Registrar
>> Transfer Policy, and the Expired Registration Recovery Policy are
>> all ICANN policies relating to second-level gTLD registrations
>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registrars/consensus-policies-en>.
>> Do we need to define the term “root zone” to include the second
>> level or remove the words? [On April 5, CCWG directed us to remove
>> the words; on April 11 this position was reversed, so now we need
>> to know whether root zone should be defined.]____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> *B. You have asked us for clarification of Question 7 regarding
>> the Interim Board.*____
>>
>> *Our original question was as follows:*____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> 7. The CCWG proposal was silent on how the Interim Board is to
>> consult with the community to make major decisions. We have
>> included a suggestion that the Interim Board shall “(a) consult
>> with the chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory
>> Committees before making major decisions (as if such action were a
>> Rejection Action [as defined in Annex D]) */and/* (b) consult
>> through a community forum (in a manner consistent with the process
>> for a Rejection Action Community Forum pursuant to Section [_] of
>> Annex D)” prior to taking the action. Are these the right
>> processes? ____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> *CCWG Response: *____
>>
>> Agreed with Option a) ____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> _REQUESTED FURTHER CLARIFICATION_:____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> The Proposal, in Annex 4, Paragraph 98, provides as follows:____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> The ICANN Bylaws will state that, except in circumstances of where
>> urgent decisions are needed to protect the security, stability and
>> resilience of the DNS, the Interim Board will consult with the
>> community through the SO and AC leaderships before making major
>> decisions. Where relevant, the Interim Board *will also consult
>> through the ICANN Community Forum* before taking any action that
>> would mean a material change in ICANN’s strategy, policies or
>> management, including replacement of the serving President and
>> CEO.____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> Our original request for clarification was not intended to present
>> a choice between two options (as was apparently misunderstood),
>> but rather to seek the CCWG’s confirmation that the Interim
>> Board’s consultation with SO and AC leadership would follow the
>> same procedures as a Rejection Action, and that, similarly, the
>> Community Forum consultation would follow the same procedures as a
>> Rejection Action Community Forum. ____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> Based on the CCWG response to our original Question 7, *it
>> appears* *that the CCWG wishes to modify the Proposal by
>> eliminating the Interim Board community forum consultation
>> requirement. Please confirm that you are giving direction for us
>> to modify the Proposal or revise the answer above to read: “We
>> confirm *the Interim Board shall “(a) consult with the chairs of
>> the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees before making
>> major decisions (as if such action were a Rejection Action [as
>> defined in Annex D]) */and/* (b) consult through a community forum
>> (in a manner consistent with the process for a Rejection Action
>> Community Forum pursuant to Section [_] of Annex D)” prior to
>> taking the action.”____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> **____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> *HOLLY J. GREGORY*
>> Partner and Co-Chair, Global Corporate Governance & Executive
>> Compensation Practice
>>
>> *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP*
>> 787 Seventh Avenue
>> New York, NY 10019
>> +1 212 839 5853 <tel:%2B1%20212%20839%205853>
>> holly.gregory at sidley.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','holly.gregory at sidley.com');>
>> www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com>____
>>
>> *<image001.jpg>*____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> ____
>>
>> ****************************************************************************************************
>> 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.
>>
>> ****************************************************************************************************____
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org');>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>
>
> --
>
> __
>
> http://hilweb1/images/signature.jpg____
>
>
>
> ____
>
>
>
> *Gregory S. Shatan | Partner
> *McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
>
> 245 Park Avenue, 27th Floor | New York, New York 10167
> T: 212-609-6873 <tel:212-609-6873>
> F: 212-416-7613 <tel:212-416-7613>
> gshatan @mccarter.com <mailto:gshatan%20 at mccarter.com> |
> www.mccarter.com <http://www.mccarter.com/>
>
> BOSTON | HARTFORD | STAMFORD | NEW YORK | NEWARK
> EAST BRUNSWICK | PHILADELPHIA | WILMINGTON | WASHINGTON, DC____
>
> __
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list