[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 5 - Mission - 3rd reading conclusions

Mon Jan 25 16:52:21 UTC 2016

Dear Becky,
Thanks for search and your three options .
I personally support your option 2 since Options 1 and 3 uses the term"
ratifies" which is very strong words and has a high level of legal
connotations due to the fact that we may need to specify the criteria of
ratification ( simple majority, super majority and so on....)whereas the
term " implement" has an operational cobnnotation.
Regards
Kavouss

2016-01-25 17:39 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>:

> Update in advance of call:
>
> The ASO language still seems to be something of a moving target.  I
> believe the following 3 versions are in play:
>
> Version 1:  Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most
> level of Internet Protocol ("IP") and Autonomous System ("AS") numbers. Further,
> it ratifies, at the global level, policies related to these IP and AS
> numbers and developed according to the ICANN Address Supporting
> Organization (ASO) Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the Number
> Resource Organization dated 21 October, 2004, as may be amended from time
> to time in accordance with its terms.
>
>
>
> Version 2:  Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most
> level of Internet Protocol (“IP”) and Autonomous System (“AS”) numbers.
> Further, it implements, at the global level, policies related to these IP
> and AS numbers and developed pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding
> between ICANN and the Number Resource Organization dated 21 October,
> 2004, as may be amended from time to time in accordance with its terms.
>
>
>
> Version 3:  Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most
> level of Internet Protocol (“IP”) and Autonomous System (“AS”) numbers.
> Further, it ratifies and implements, at the global level, policies
> related to these IP and AS numbers and developed pursuant to the ICANN
> Address Supporting Organization (ASO) Memorandum of Understanding between
> ICANN and the Number Resource Organization dated 21 October, 2004, as may
> be amended from time to time in accordance with its terms.
>
> *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*
> <http://www.neustar.biz>
>
> From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>
> Date: Monday, January 25, 2016 at 5:05 AM
> To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 5 - Mission - 3rd reading conclusions
>
> *Sent on behalf of CoChairs *
>
> Please find below the conclusions (3rd reading) of our mission
> deliberations during call #78. The updated document is attached.
>
> Conclusions:
> 1. On Consumer Trust: agreement to keep Third Draft Proposal language.
> Reference to Consumer Trust should not be added to Core Values. It will be
> included at part of AOC reviews.
> 2. Discuss ALAC concern regarding removal of the words “where feasible and
> appropriate” in Core Value 4 that states : Depending on market mechanisms
> to promote and sustain a healthy competitive environment in the DNS market
> 3. Awaiting Board input on root servers
> 4. On numbers language, wordsmithing is needed based on input from lawyers
> - see
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/009725.html
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity_2016-2DJanuary_009725.html&d=CwQGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=lzj8v1kvCk6YVY-j-3w2qOhWX5mMI5IPL9r5LunULM0&s=4L1cGahaUtTeaOP1eJ6G0Uk5DeFP3lkZmW-Nm78o5GM&e=>
> and proposed language from ASO: "Coordinates the allocation and assignment
> at the top-most level of Internet Protocol (“IP”) and Autonomous System
> (“AS”) numbers. Further, it ratifies, at the global level, policies related
> to these IP and AS numbers and developed according to the ASO-MoU."
> 5. On RSSAC language:
> [RSSAC PROPOSED TEXT:  Facilitates coordinatesion of the operation and
> evolution of the DNS root name server system.]
> [BOARD PROPOSED TEXT: Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS
> root name server system.  In this role, ICANN’s Mission is to [to be
> provided by RSSAC]. ICANN retains an operational role as well as considers
> inputs from the communities dependent on the root server system.]
> 6. Discuss the issue around the scope of ICANN’s agreements with
> contracted parties (page 10). 3rd draft provisions are :
>
> a. ICANN shall not impose regulations on services that use the Internet’s
> unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide.
> b. ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce
> agreements with contracted parties in furtherance service of its Mission.
> c. Take into consideration legal advice : “For clients facing similar
> dilemmas, a common approach is to draft general principles into governing
> documents and provide a mechanism for interpreting them in specific
> situations.  We recommend that the CCWG agree upon and articulate mission
> principles at a general level appropriate for inclusion in the Bylaws,
> understanding that refinement and interpretation will be needed
> thereafter”.
>
> 7. Grandfathering. Discuss questions raised by lawyers :
>
> a. What is the effective cut-off date for the grandfathering?  This could
> be a specified date in the future, or could be an event, such as the date
> of adoption of the relevant Fundamental Bylaw.
> b. Should RAs that are in the process of being put in place but have not
> yet been finalized and signed as of the effective date, be included or
> excluded?  If that should depend on how far along in the process they are,
> what should be the standard for deciding that point?
> c. Should renewals of existing RAs, unchanged, that contain PICs covered
> by the grandfathering clause, be included?  If so, should there be a limit
> on the number of renewals that will be covered?  Should grandfathering
> cover PICs that are not modified, even though other provisions of the
> agreement are changed?
> d. What if an existing RA/RAA includes a grandfathered PIC, and the
> agreement is modified, by mutual agreement or otherwise -- is it still
> grandfathered?
> e. Should all grandfathering have a sunset date, i.e., a point far enough
> in the future on which all grandfathering protection will expire?
>
> 8. Discuss request to provide impact assessment as requested by several
> group members.
>
> Fourth reading is planned for Tuesday, 26 January.
>
> Best regards
>
> Mathieu, Thomas, León
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160125/e90ac295/attachment-0001.html>