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

Mon Jul 18 20:17:46 UTC 2016

Paul,

Can you point to the specific text that concerns you regarding interpreting
local laws?

Thanks!

Greg

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Paul M Kane <Paul.Kane at icb.co.uk> wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160718/5c2af1b2/attachment-0001.html>