[CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] PTI Bylaws

Mon Jul 18 19:54:53 UTC 2016

Correct - I am saying that IANA should NOT interpret local laws......

The Registry operator must accord with the laws of the jurisdiction in
which they are based - and nothing must be done to undermine the
standing of the Registry.  So the Registry updates the IANA and local
accountability to applicable laws rules - IANA is simply the record
keeper.  This is how it has always been (unless there is a ccTLD
Registry Contract with ICANN that says otherwise).

I agree "shall respect the diversity of customers"!

I am very stretched on time at the moment - I will respond more fully asap.

Best

Paul

On 18/07/16 19:02, Martin Boyle wrote:
> Hi Paul, all,
> 
> I'm not sure I agree with you, Paul.  I do not think that the IANA functions operator is empowered to interpret laws and I am pretty certain that the current operator does not want that role.  If there is any doubt, the IANA functions operator refers back to country for information about the law and the result of the legal processes.
> 
> The issue is really more to do with the complexity of the relations, which makes it hard to write bylaws.  However, the draft - "shall respect the diversity of customers" - would seem to cover this without opening it for PTI to ignore agreed policy.
> 
> If it doesn't, it would be helpful to have a proposal that does not open up the role of PTI.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Martin
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG
> Sent: 14 July 2016 11:20
> To: jrobinson at afilias.info
> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] PTI Bylaws
> 
> Thanks Jonathan but I have major problems with the new PTI Bylaws text
> 
> PTI is a service provider to the ccTLD Registry.  The new text of Annex C is now empowering PTI to interpret local laws for cTLDs and risks destabilising existing registrants of current ccTLD Registries.
> 
> The new language proposed for Annex C are not acceptable IMHO they risk the stable operation of ccTLD Registries and their ability to robustly serve their customers.
> 
> This is a major change from the CWG proposal
> 
> Best
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> Quoting Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>:
> 
>> All
>>
>>  
>>
>> Please see below for Sidleyâ€™s communication with the CWG Client 
>> Committee on the PTI Bylaws.
>>
>> Apologies on behalf of the Client Committee that these were not shared 
>> with the CWG more promptly.
>>
>>  
>>
>> It seems to me that there are two key issues:
>>
>>  
>>
>> 1.      We need to understand the landscape of open issues â€“ we will take
>> input from Sidley in the CWG meeting today on these
>>
>> 2.      We need assistance from Sidley in converting the summary / map of
>> those issues into structured public comment on the PTI Bylaws.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thank-you,
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>  
>>
>> From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com]
>> Sent: 11 July 2016 05:29
>> To: Client Committee <cwg-client at icann.org>
>> Subject: [client com] PTI Bylaws
>>
>>  
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>>  
>>
>> Update on PTI Bylaws:
>>
>>  
>>
>> We have been working with ICANN legal on revisions to the PTI bylaws 
>> based on the input we have received from CWG.  We had a call with 
>> ICANN legal on Friday afternoon and we circulated a revised draft of 
>> the PTI bylaws to ICANN legal on Saturday.  On Sunday, ICANN legal 
>> circulated a further revised draft (marked to show changes from the Sidley draft), which is attached.
>>
>>  
>>
>> We understand that ICANN legal plans to post the draft PTI bylaws for 
>> comment early this week notwithstanding the fact that there are open 
>> issues in the draft based on the CWG input we have received to date.  
>> ICANN legal is suggesting that CWG can continue to raise its comments 
>> through the public comment period.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Governance Chart:
>>
>>  
>>
>> ICANN legal has also circulated a chart of certain governance 
>> provisions included in the PTI bylaws that are not directly addressed 
>> in the CWG proposal.  We have annotated that chart with a column with 
>> our comments on those points.  While the details of the PTI bylaws 
>> were not specified in the CWG proposal, we believe the approach being 
>> taken by CWG in the PTI bylaws on these governance matters is consistent with the intent of the CWG proposal.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Annex C:  
>>
>>  
>>
>> In addition, we previously circulated a chart prepared by ICANN legal 
>> on their concerns with the incorporation of the Annex C provisions of 
>> the CWG proposal into the PTI bylaws.  We have reattached that chart 
>> for your reference.  The draft PTI bylaws circulated by ICANN legal do 
>> not include the Annex C language; instead the draft includes two paragraphs that ICANN legal
>> included to address certain principles from Annex C.    
>>
>>  
>>
>> Next steps:
>>
>>  
>>
>> Please let us know if you would like to discuss any of these items or 
>> if you would like us to summarize/map out the open issues.  We can 
>> also be available to assist in the preparation of a comment letter 
>> from CWG assuming that ICANN posts this version of the PTI bylaws where open issues remain.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Sharon
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> SHARON R. FLANAGAN
>>
>>
>> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
>> 555 California Street
>> Suite 2000
>> San Francisco, CA 94104
>> +1 415 772 1271
>>  <mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com> sflanagan at sidley.com  
>> <http://www.sidley.com> www.sidley.com
>>
>>   
>> <http://www2.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SIDLEY_150-AUTOSIG.png
>>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>
> ****************************************************************************************************
>> 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.
>>
>>
> ****************************************************************************************************
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> 
> 
> 