<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=us-ascii">
<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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{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"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Martin<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I am fine with all of it except 7 ii.
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The troublesome part is
<font color="#1f497d"><span style="color:#1F497D">“</span></font></span>For ccTLDs, respect national sovereignty.”<o:p></o:p></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
I don’t think many people on this group fully understand the legal and operational consequences of invoking national sovereignty here.
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Moreover I don’t think you need language that causes so much potential trouble. It is sufficient to say,
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">“Policy decisions for ccTLDs are usually made locally through nationally agreed processes in accordance with national laws and in compliance with IETF technical standards. Post
transition of the IANA function, nothing will be done by ICANN/IANA to impact the stable operation of ccTLD Registries and gTLD Registries.”</span></font><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">
</span></font><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">You might want to add a statement that IANA functions should never be exploited for political purposes; i.e., whatever state has IANA in its jurisdiction must not exploit that
to attack another state. But “respect national sovereignty” is at once too vague and too sweeping. Some would read it as requiring conformity to sovereign demands in every case, no matter what, others could read it to mean that the preferences of the sovereign
will be taken into account but there is no real commitment to conform to them. I think this opens a can of worms that we don’t want to open.
</span></font><font color="#1f497d"><span style="color:#1F497D"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-weight:bold">From:</span></font></b> cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">On Behalf Of </span></b>Martin Boyle<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Monday, March 9, 2015 1:35 PM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> cwg-stewardship@icann.org<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> [CWG-Stewardship] Principles: revised draft 9 March<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear Colleagues,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt">I attach a revised draft of the principles document based on our calls on 3 & 5 March. I believe we have a text that is pretty much in its final form, with only
one outstanding issue.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt">Looking at the remaining highlighted changes:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt">5.ii & iii: These are mainly editorial and have been discussed without opposition on recent calls.
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt">5.iv footnote: We had comments about the meaning of consensus in the footnote. I do not think that defining consensus is in the remit of
this document, but is part of the considerations of any entity that we establish. Hence I have added, “Conditions for consensus will need to be agreed appropriate for the group” to make this clear.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt">5.vi: As I said when I flagged this paragraph as of concern, I am inherently uneasy about a principle that is essentially optional and where
it might need to be re-written because of subsequent choices that we make. Either it is a principle or it isn’t. I believe that we need to understand the implications of what we are trying to say, so I am taking editor’s right to propose a new formulation
that should be independent of subsequent decisions.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt">6.ii: Was agreed as not being a principle last week.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt">7.i: Editing agreed last week.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt">7.ii: We took this off-line. There has been some progress in discussions with Paul and Elise. I have made a drafting proposal to both
for wording that tries to take into account the concerns they have expressed. However, this paragraph needs to be held in abeyance until we have heard the views of both.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt">8.ii: In discussion with Erick, we have identified a compromise that moves away from saying anything about the policy authority and who
it might or might not be. The proposed wording (“In particular, the IANA functions operator should not impose any additional requirements on the registry unless they are directly and demonstrably linked to global security, stability and resilience of the
DNS.”) turns this around to prevent the IANA functions operator making unilateral decisions that impact the ccTLD except in (rare) cases of global security, stability and resilience.
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Given the delicate balance behind this text, I hope that others will find this formulation acceptable</span></b> and I thank Erick for his support in finding this compromise.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt">9.i: A minor point here that was discussed last week. The wording is not necessary to the text, but does make it clearer that i. is about
separability now and iii. says we would need to include separability for all future IANA functions operators.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt">10: A reasonable edit proposed by Mary last week: no objections have been raised.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt">Hence I would hold 5.ii-iv, 6.ii, 7.i, 9.i and 10 to be agreed text if there are no objections.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt">5.iv: I suggest we use the new wording unless there is significant opposition.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt">7.ii: This has to stay in abeyance subject to agreement by Elise (in discussion with the GAC) and by Paul Kane.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt">8.ii: Again I suggest we use the proposed wording unless there is significant opposition.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt">I look forward to comments on this approach, and please do flag early any difficulties you might have with any of the proposals.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt">Best<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt">Martin<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>