<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Responding first to Becky's original email.....</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Comments inline.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Burr, Becky <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px">
<span style="font-family:'Avenir Next';font-size:12pt">Please read all the way through to the bottom for a question and proposal.</span></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px">
<span style="font-family:'Avenir Next';font-size:12pt"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px">
<span style="font-family:'Avenir Next';font-size:12pt">Based on our discussion this morning, I believe that the following statements reflect the consensus of the CCWG (lack of </span><span style="font-family:'Avenir Next';font-size:12pt">“</span><span style="font-family:'Avenir Next';font-size:12pt">full
consensus” on 1 point noted in text):</span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">GS: I think it's premature (at best) to call consensus (much less full consensus) on a number of these topics. We begin well but go downhill after that</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Avenir Next"> </font></p>
<p><font face="Avenir Next"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">· </span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">ICANN’s Mission with respect to names is described in the
Mission Statement as follows: </span>With respect to NAMES, ICANN’s Mission is to coordinate the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS"). In this role, ICANN’s Mission is to coordinate the development and implementation
of policies: (I)<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS; and (ii) </span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">That
are developed through a bottom-up, consensus-based multi- stakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique names systems.</span></font></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">I can agree with that.</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div>
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<font face="Avenir Next">· ICANN’s Mission is limited and enumerated.</font></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">I can agree with that.</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Avenir Next"><u></u><u></u></font></p>
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<font face="Avenir Next">· ICANN’s should act in accordance with, and only as reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission.</font></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">I can agree with that.</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Avenir Next"><u></u><u></u></font></p>
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<font face="Avenir Next">· Coordinating development, implementation, and enforcement of Consensus Policy, as defined by Specification 1 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement and Specification 4 of the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement,
is within ICANN’s Mission.</font></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">I can agree with that.</div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Avenir Next"><u></u><u></u></font></p>
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<font face="Avenir Next">· ICANN should have the authority to enforce agreements with contracted parties, subject to established means of community input on those agreements and reasonable checks and balances on its ability to impose
obligations exceeding ICANN’s Mission on such parties.</font></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">I can agree up to the comma. After that, it gets less clear. If the "established means of community input" are public comments on form contracts during their development, I can agree with that. Indeed, I think there should be more "community input" when contracts are being developed. If it refers to some form of community input after the agreements have been signed, I'm less sure about that (especially as something to be baked into a Bylaw). I would note that both Malcolm and I crossed out the language after the first comma in the chart you circulated, so it's hard to say there's consensus on that part of the sentence.</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Avenir Next"><u></u><u></u></font></p>
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-left:1in">
<font face="Avenir Next">o To the extent that registry operators voluntarily assume obligations with respect to registry operations as part of the application process, ICANN should have the authority to enforce those
commitments. <u></u><u></u></font></p>
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-left:1.5in">
<font face="Avenir Next"> <i>NOTE: There is not “full consensus” on this position</i>.</font></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">The lack of "full consensus" (and almost certainly lack of consensus) probably goes in two different directions, those who think this goes too far, and those that think this isn't going far enough. If these obligations are in contracts, registry operators are obligated to comply with them. As with each and every obligation in ICANN's agreements, the parties (both ICANN and the contracted party) must comply with their obligations, they are in breach if they don't do so, and the non-breaching party should take the necessary steps to get the other party to comply.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-left:1.5in"><font face="Avenir Next"><u></u><u></u></font></p>
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-left:1in">
<font face="Avenir Next">o In general, consistent with ordinary contract concepts, registries and registrars should be presumed to have agreed to the terms and conditions of any contract with ICANN.</font></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">I think that phrasing this merely as a presumption is too weak. Contracts are obligations of the contracting parties, not merely presumed obligations. Creating a special version of contract law just for ICANN is dangerous, and I can't agree with that. So no agreement here, though getting rid of the "wiggle words" would change that. We could say that ICANN can only enforce those parts of its contracts that the counter-parties say are enforceable, but that would be utterly bizarre.</div> <span style="font-family:'Avenir Next';color:rgb(0,0,0)"> </span></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-left:1in">
<i style="font-family:'Avenir Next'">That said</i><span style="font-family:'Avenir Next'">, there should be some mechanism whereby contracted parties can enter into such agreements without waiving their rights to challenge specified provisions of such an
agreement on the grounds that they exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission.</span><span style="font-family:'Avenir Next'"> Any such mechanism would have to provide adequate notice, needs to be developed, etc.</span></p></blockquote></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">It's quite interesting to see the CCWG being used as a factory in which to construct a machine to challenge provisions of registry and registrar agreements that some may not like. First, we have bylaws changes to the Mission primarily phrased as prohibitions rather than positive missions statements, designed to form a basis for a challenge; then we have a statement supporting an affirmative right for contracted parties (and for some, any "aggrieved party") to challenge their contracts, after that we have the foundation for a mechanism where this right can be exercised. All under the banner of enhancing ICANN's accountability. I'm becoming less convinced that this is about accountability, and more concerned that this is just a tool in a campaign to renegotiate ICANN's contract, with a playing prepared for the needs of one set of parties. All being done at a level of abstraction where the real controversies are not quite apparent, or at least are not typically discussed.</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
</blockquote>
<div>
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-left:1in">
<span style="font-family:'Avenir Next'"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-left:1in">
<span style="font-family:'Avenir Next'"><b>We do not appear to have consensus on the following concept</b>: </span><i style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Avenir Next'"><span style="color:rgb(51,102,255)">Without in any way limiting
the foregoing absolute prohibition, ICANN shall not regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide.</span></i></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">It all depends on what one thinks "regulation" is and (to a lesser extent) what the "services" are, and whether this prohibition is limited in any way. Contracting? Consensus Policy?</div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div>
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-left:1in">
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Avenir Next'"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1in">
<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12pt;font-family:'Avenir Next'"><i><b>Question</b>: Does the following formulation t</i></span><span style="font-family:'Avenir Next'">hread the needle between those who say that ICANN
should not use its contracting authority to regulate registrant behavior and those who point out that the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, for example, requires registrants to provide accurate and up-to-date WHOIS data: <i><font color="#0000ff">I</font></i></span><span style="font-family:'Avenir Next';font-size:12pt"><i><font color="#0000ff">CANN
should not use its authority to enter into contracts with registries and registrars to impose obligations and limitations on registrants with respect to issues that are not properly the subject of Consensus Policy.</font></i></span></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">This seems even narrower than prior propositions where the limitation was ICANN's Mission. It should be clear that Consensus Policy is within ICANN's Mission, but ICANN's Mission goes beyond Consensus Policy. And in terms of abstraction, "issues that are not properly the subject of Consensus Policy" is pretty darn abstract. It's not something that is clear on its face, to say the least. It would be instructive to pull out the RA and RAA and see which provisions if any would effectively be nullified by this Bylaw. Depending on what we do here, we may need to change the statement in the Executive Summary that the CCWG is not proposing any changes in the way ICANN conducts day-to-day operations. I would say that using Bylaws to rewrite ICANN's contracts is a significant change in how ICANN does business, and not a particularly good use of Bylaws or the CCWG.</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Frankly, the efforts here to resolve (or tilt the playing field to resolve) a particular controversy are probably misplaced in the CCWG and particularly in the Bylaws. But that seems to be where we are and what we (or at least, some of us) are trying to do.... </div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div>
</div>
<span style="font-size:16px"><br>
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div><span style="font-size:16px;white-space:pre-wrap"></span><b style="font-size:16px"><i>PROPOSAL</i></b><span style="font-size:16px">: If so, I propose that the CCWG provide the text above as guidance for the final bylaws drafters
in interpreting the admonition that "</span><span style="font-size:16px;font-family:'Avenir Book'">ICANN shall act
</span><span style="font-size:16px;font-family:'Avenir Book';color:rgb(0,0,144)">strictly
</span><span style="font-size:16px;font-family:'Avenir Book'">in accordance with, and
</span><span style="font-size:16px;font-family:'Avenir Book';color:rgb(0,0,144)">only</span><font face="Avenir Book" style="font-size:16px"> as reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission.</font><font face="Avenir Book" style="font-size:16px">”</font><font face="Avenir Book"><span style="font-size:16px"> I
believe this would (1) eliminate concerns and ambiguity regarding use of the word “regulation,”; (2) reflect consensus on the principles; and (3) address the late change/legislative history/statutory construction concern raised by Paul R. and others.</span></font></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Unfortunately, I don't think it does any of the above, at least not at this point. I'm open to continued discussion, as my goal (as always) is to try and find solutions which nobody may think are perfect, but which everybody can find acceptable.</div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">However, I'm concerned this is a step backwards from consensus, not towards it.</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Greg</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div><span style="font-size:16px"> </span></div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;margin-top:12pt">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-top:12pt">
<b><span style="font-size:9pt;line-height:115%">J. Beckwith Burr</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#262626">
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#3366ff"><br>
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#008656">Neustar, Inc.</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#068658">
</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#7d7d7d">/</span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#068658">
</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#7d7d7d">Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer<br>
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:gray"><br>
</span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#008656">Office:</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#7d7d7d">
</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#7d7d7d"><a href="tel:%2B1.202.533.2932" value="+12025332932" target="_blank">+1.202.533.2932</a>
</span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#008656">Mobile:</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#7d7d7d">
</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#7d7d7d"><a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367" value="+12023526367" target="_blank">+1.202.352.6367</a>
<strong><span style="font-family:Arial">/</span></strong></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#068658">
</span><a href="http://www.neustar.biz" target="_blank"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#008656">neustar.biz</span></b></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:gray"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>