[CWG-Stewardship] FW: ICANN-PTI Naming Functions Agreement & Services Agreement Headers

[Paul M Kane - CWG]

Hi Lise

Thanks for giving us a preview of the Naming Functions Agreement.

I have not read the detail of the Naming Agreement yet but I do see that there
is frequent reference to the GAC Principles relating to ccTLDs.

i) the ICANN Board has never adopted the advise given in the GAC Principles 2005;
ii) The Framework of Interpretation (
https://features.icann.org/adoption-framework-interpretation-cctld-delegations-and-redelegations
) for ccTLD Delegations and Redelegations which was developed by Framework of
Interpretation Working Group (FOIWG) and reviewed by CCNSO and considered by the
GAC and approved by the ICANN Board on Thu, 25 Jun 2015 - Resolution Number:
2015.06.25.07 – 2015.06.25.08

specifically says
"certain documents including the GAC Principles 2000 (which the GAC superseded
in 2005).....  should be archived and considered no longer used by ICANN staff."

However I note in the Naming Functions Agreement there are multiple references
to the GAC Principles..... which obviously should not be cited.

I assume that references to the GAC Principles will be removed as in ICANN's own
words they ..... "should be archived and considered no longer used by ICANN staff."

Kind regards

Paul


Quoting Lise Fuhr <Fuhr at etno.eu>:

> Dear All,
> 
> Please see the attached Naming Functions Agreement which the comments from
> Sidley. We have a CWG call on Thursday where we can discuss the issues raised
> by Sidley.
> 
> Best,
> Lise
> 
> From: cwg-client-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-client-bounces at icann.org] On
> Behalf Of Hofheimer, Joshua T.
> Sent: 26 July 2016 03:20
> To: Client Committee
> Cc: Greeley, Amy E.
> Subject: Re: [client com] ICANN-PTI Naming Functions Agreement & Services
> Agreement Headers
> 
> Client Committee -- Attached is a further revised draft of Sidley’s
> comments to the Naming Functions Agreement.  For convenience, we have
> included a clean Word version, a cumulative PDF redline against the ICANN
> draft, and an internal redline against the version we sent yesterday.
> 
> Please note, we have not undertaken a formal review of the Naming Functions
> Agreement against Annex C.  We are looking for guidance from the CWG as to
> whether the provisions that the CWG drafted to implement Annex C (as
> described in the Implementation Proposal dated June 9, 2016) will be
> incorporated in the bylaws or the naming function agreement.  Once this
> determination is made, we can ensure that the provisions are appropriately
> documented, if requested.
> 
> Cheers,
> Josh
> 
> Joshua Hofheimer
> Sidley Austin LLP
> jhofheimer at sidley.com
> (213) 896-6061 (LA direct)
> (650) 565-7561 (Palo Alto direct)
> (323) 708-2405 (cell)
> 
> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T.
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 12:50 PM
> To: 'Client Committee'
> Cc: Resnick, Yael; Flanagan, Sharon; Gregory, Holly; Grapsas, Rebecca;
> Greeley, Amy E.
> Subject: RE: ICANN-PTI Naming Functions Agreement & Services Agreement
> Headers
> 
> Dear Client Committee – If you have not already started reviewing the
> attached, please hold for a few hours.  We will have a revised draft to you
> shortly with further observations on the connections to the ICANN Bylaws, and
> some additional revisions.
> 
> Thanks,
> Josh
> 
> Joshua Hofheimer
> Sidley Austin LLP
> jhofheimer at sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer at sidley.com>
> (213) 896-6061 (LA direct)
> (650) 565-7561 (Palo Alto direct)
> (323) 708-2405 (cell)
> 
> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T.
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 4:02 PM
> To: Client Committee
> Cc: Resnick, Yael; Flanagan, Sharon; Gregory, Holly; Grapsas, Rebecca;
> Greeley, Amy E.
> Subject: ICANN-PTI Naming Functions Agreement & Services Agreement Headers
> 
> Dear Client Committee,
> 
> Attached please find proposed comments to the Naming Functions Agreement and
> the Services Agreement Headers, both clean and marked against the versions
> sent by ICANN.  Because the Services Agreement Headers received from ICANN
> was in PDF only, we converted to Word and added formatting.  However, this
> has made the redline look more atrocious than it actually is.  We are going
> to try to clean this up a little in the versions to go to ICANN, but did not
> want to delay getting feedback or comments from the community.
> 
> On the Naming Functions Agreement, we focused primarily on verifying the
> mapping exercise undertaken by ICANN to ensure the CWG’s views and
> conditions have been incorporated.  Where the proposed draft appears to be
> lacking or inconsistent, we have noted with questions, comments, and in some
> instances direct revisions.
> 
> Cheers,
> Josh
> 
> JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER
> Partner
> 
> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
> +1 650 565 7561 (PA direct)
> +1 213 896 6061 (LA direct)
> +1 323 708 2405 (Cell)
> jhofheimer at sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer at sidley.com>
> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com>
> [Image removed by sender. SIDLEY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
****************************************************************************************************
> 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.
> 
>
****************************************************************************************************
>