[bylaws-coord] Agreed text for the first sentence of the Mission

Thu Apr 21 03:37:26 UTC 2016

Would it make more sense to clarify that the reference is to *consensus*
policies (see below)?

Greg

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:

> FYI, we are also discussing this language with Registries and Registrars
> (thanks Keith)
>
> “Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of
> the Domain Name System, and
> *the associated consensus policies governing* the allocation and
> assignment of names *by* gTLD registry operators and ICANN accredited
> registrars.”
>
>
> *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: <Burr>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>
> Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 3:37 PM
> To: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>, Andrew Sullivan <
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> Cc: ICANN-Adler <ICANN at adlercolvin.com>, Daniel Halloran <
> daniel.halloran at icann.org>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>,
> "bylaws-coord at icann.org" <bylaws-coord at icann.org>, Amy Stathos <
> amy.stathos at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [bylaws-coord] Agreed text for the first sentence of the
> Mission
>
> Yes, I’ve put it out for broader comment Milton.  But Keith is the other
> Registry SG rep on the CCWG, so that is why I checked with him first
>
> *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: <Mueller>, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 3:35 PM
> To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>, Andrew Sullivan <
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> Cc: ICANN-Adler <ICANN at adlercolvin.com>, Daniel Halloran <
> daniel.halloran at icann.org>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>,
> "bylaws-coord at icann.org" <bylaws-coord at icann.org>, Amy Stathos <
> amy.stathos at icann.org>
> Subject: RE: [bylaws-coord] Agreed text for the first sentence of the
> Mission
>
> Hmmm, not sure that the two largest incumbent registries with established
> contracts are all that we need to hear from, is there a way to interface
> with the broader group?
>
>
>
> *From:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
> <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2:56 PM
> *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>; Andrew Sullivan <
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> *Cc:* ICANN-Adler <ICANN at adlercolvin.com>; Daniel Halloran <
> daniel.halloran at icann.org>; Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>;
> bylaws-coord at icann.org; Amy Stathos <amy.stathos at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [bylaws-coord] Agreed text for the first sentence of the
> Mission
>
>
>
> I have chatted with Keith Drazek and we are now comfortable
>
>
>
> *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: *<Mueller>, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> *Date: *Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 2:43 PM
> *To: *Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>, Andrew Sullivan <
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> *Cc: *ICANN-Adler <ICANN at adlercolvin.com>, Daniel Halloran <
> daniel.halloran at icann.org>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>,
> "bylaws-coord at icann.org" <bylaws-coord at icann.org>, Amy Stathos <
> amy.stathos at icann.org>
> *Subject: *RE: [bylaws-coord] Agreed text for the first sentence of the
> Mission
>
>
>
> Becky
>
> Does this mean we are waiting for you to sound out the registries, and
> registrars, on whether they find this acceptable?
>
>
>
> I agree with Andrew that it is up to registries and registrars to tell us
> whether they consider this acceptable or not. From my limited point of
> view, it seemed a bit expansive but not as bad as some of the alternatives.
> I share Andrew’s concerns, however, so if the Rys and Rrs don’t see this
> expanding the scope of the picket fence it would be hard for others to
> object. They are the most directly affected party and any objections are
> not going to go anywhere without their support anyway.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:*bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org <bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Burr, Becky
> *Sent:* Monday, April 18, 2016 8:18 PM
> *To:* Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> *Cc:* ICANN-Adler <ICANN at adlercolvin.com>; Daniel Halloran <
> daniel.halloran at icann.org>; Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>;
> bylaws-coord at icann.org; Amy Stathos <amy.stathos at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [bylaws-coord] Agreed text for the first sentence of the
> Mission
>
>
>
> +1.  I feel somewhat concerned and have reached out to confirm this works
> as a way forward.
>
> Becky Burr
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Apr 18, 2016, at 20:01, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:46:54PM +0000, Rosemary E. Fei wrote:
>
>
>
>
> “Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of
> the Domain Name System, and the allocations and assignment of names by gTLD
> registry operators and ICANN accredited registrars.”
>
>
>
>
> As I suggested on the call yesterday, I have some reservations about
> this, but I'll swallow them.
>
> I continue to believe it is factually incorrect.  Registries and
> registrars do the actual allocation and assignment.  ICANN is the
> organization in which those other organizations convene in order to
> co-ordinate their policies, and ICANN imposes such co-ordination as a
> condition of being able to operate within the ICANN-controlled domain
> name space.  But if gTLD registries and ICANN-accredited registrars
> aren't going to complain, I'm not going to either.  It is an enormous
> improvement over the previous proposal (to remove "in the root zone").
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> bylaws-coord mailing list
> bylaws-coord at icann.org
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_bylaws-2Dcoord&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=izCs56de1r2-Zt3o2zjGkSZDCKrCfRg_v6QRHpz8hDc&s=6WA8BnBiHUhs1bOsIF-nGDLKeR2D_8BhFIdaWmCB76Q&e=
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bylaws-coord mailing list
> bylaws-coord at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bylaws-coord/attachments/20160420/a2304872/attachment-0001.html>