<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Becky, I think trying to answer ALAC questions is an improper shift in the burden of proof. I think the question that Alan and the other 14 people on ALAC need
to answer is whether they believe there should be ANY limits on ICANN’s scope of authority that can be exercised via contracting with registrars and registries. My belief, based on the comments I see here, is that they do not want there to be any such limits.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Could an ALAC spokesperson, or even an individual ALAC member, answer that question with a simple yes or no? Should the mission limit what ICANN can do via its
contracts? If your answer is No, then it’s clearly going to be a nonconsensual position and we will just have to go on without it. If the answer is Yes, I’d be interested in seeing examples of what kinds of things the 15 people in ALAC think ARE outside of
CANN’s scope and mission and would constitute an over-reaching use of its authority.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">More responses to Becky in line below:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-.25in">
<i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black">While I don’t think that ICANN has the authority to <b>demand </b>that the registry operator adopt such a policy, I have no problem whatsoever with ICANN holding the registrant to that policy if it was
offered as part of the application. (Others may well disagree with me.)</span></i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I do disagree. One problem is that the line between what ICANN demands and what is offered “voluntarily” by the registry is unclear, and easily fudged, given
ICANN’s monopoly position. For example, suppose someone applied for that TLD and the GAC and ALAC advised that the applicant not be given the domain unless they adopted such a policy. If this would be classified as the registry “voluntarily” adopting the policy
(because they will be denied entry if they don’t) it is very clearly an example of ICANN using its monopoly control of the root to impose regulation on the users
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black"> </span></i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-.25in">
<span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black"> </span><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black">Third, rather than speaking in generalities, could we talk about some specific provisions
that arguably fall outside ICANN’s Mission and its implementation authority? I’m asking both sides for contributions on this point. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM: I think David Post and I and others have provided numerous examples of this.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black"> </span></i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-.25in">
<span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black"> </span><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black">Finally – the request for a “legal opinion.” I will repeat what I’ve already said,
these kind of open-ended questions produce very expensive, very unsatisfying legal opinions. Rather than chase this option, once we agree on the problem statement, let’s ask the lawyers if there is language that could be added to reinforce the likelihood
that any challenge will be resolved in the manner we collectively anticipate. </span></i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM: totally agree<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:13.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-13.5pt">
<span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black">3.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black">According to the ALAC Draft Summary “anything which would allow an IRP to invalidate the
current contractual terms is not acceptable.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black">I don’t think that there is a risk of invalidating the current contractual terms – and the language that we have discussed as an additional note to drafters
would reinforce that (</span></i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:#666666">This means that the parties who entered into existing contracts intended (and intend) to be bound by those agreements. It means that neither a contracting party nor anyone
else should be able to bring a case that any provisions of such agreements on their face are ultra vires. It does not, however, modify any contracting party’s right to challenge the other partyıs interpretation of that language.) </span><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black">I
don’t have a particular problem extending that to existing applicants who have yet to sign registry agreements, though others might.</span></i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black">But seriously, is ALAC asking for a guarantee that certain provisions cannot be challenged? That is not a reasonable ask IMHO. That’s because it is always
the case that ICANN could choose to enforce a provision of an existing agreement in a manner that is a frank violation of the Mission. I’ve previously provided several examples in the context of 3.18 of the RAA, which I believe is – on its face – consistent
with Mission, but which could be enforced in a manner that is not.</span></i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black"> </span></i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:13.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-13.5pt">
<span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black">4.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black">ALAC continues to object to the removal of the “where feasible and appropriate” caveat to
the Core Values regarding reliance on market mechanisms to promote and sustain a competitive environment. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:13.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt">
<span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">
<i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black">ALAC takes exception with my point that “ICANN does not possess the requisite skill or authority to intervene in the competitive market,” citing the RSEP provisions regarding concerns about significant
competition issues. I think the example completely supports my point here. In the RSEP, if ICANN has competition concerns, it has the authority to “refer the matter to the appropriate competition authority.” From that point it is entirely up to the appropriate
competition authority to exercise its sovereign authority with respect to antitrust law. If the concern is that somehow the omission of the “where feasible and appropriate” language would prevent ICANN from making such a referral (which I don’t believe is
the case), then I am happy to clarify. But taking competition law into its own hands is, IMHO, a very clear example of the kind of regulatory authority that ICANN should not have.</span></i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">
<i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black"> </span></i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:13.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-13.5pt">
<span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black">5.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black">ALAC objects to the Commitment to “preserve and enhance the neutral and judgment free operation
of the DNS,” pointing out that the NTIA requirement is limited to the “neutral and judgment free administration of the technical DNS and IANA functions.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black">Good point, I am ok with that change</span></i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black">.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM: I am not ok with that change<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:13.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-13.5pt">
<span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black">6.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black">The ALAC believes that the AoC commitment to “consumer trust” should be in the ICANN Commitments
and Core Values rather than in the AoC reviews provisions of the Bylaws.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:13.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt">
<span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:#333333;background:white">Section 3 of the AoC describes what the “document” (the AoC) accomplishes: it affirms key commitments by </span></i><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black">DOC</span></i><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:#333333;background:white"> and </span></i><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black">ICANN</span></i><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:#333333;background:white">,
including commitments “to promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the </span></i><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black">DNS</span></i><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:#333333;background:white"> marketplace.”
The context for promoting consumer trust is found exclusively in Section 9.3, which describes the reviews that must be undertaken in connection with the expansion of the top level domain space. This issue was debated extensively within the CCWG. A general
commitment to promoting consumer trust threatens massive scope creep IMHO. </span></i><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:black">J. Beckwith Burr</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#262626">
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#3366FF"><br>
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#008656">Neustar, Inc.</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#068658">
</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7D7D7D">/</span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#068658">
</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7D7D7D">Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer<br>
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:gray"><br>
</span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#008656">Office:</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7D7D7D">
</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7D7D7D">+1.202.533.2932 </span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#008656">Mobile:</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7D7D7D">
</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7D7D7D">+1.202.352.6367 </span><strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#7D7D7D">/</span></strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#068658">
</span><span style="color:black"><a href="http://www.neustar.biz"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#008656">neustar.biz</span></b></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>