<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 12 (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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
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;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Milton,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I’ll leave to Elise to say what the GAC means by national sovereignty and why there needs to be a reference here!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Yes, it is a difficult topic and partly because people do interpret national sovereignty in different ways. But, as you know, for the GAC, reference to national sovereignty is crucial. There are many different
circumstances and so we have also needed to consider additional wording to set the context for this particular case.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">You need to think of 7.ii in relation to the chapeau text, “decisions and actions of the IANA Functions Operator should be made objectively based on policy agreed to through the recognised bottom-up multi-stakeholder
processes. As such, decisions and actions of the IANA Functions Operator should…” In other words, this is about the difference between gTLDs and ccTLDs and marks that US extraterritoriality should not overrule the appropriate national or local processes under
which the registry is operated. So IANA could not turn around and say to a ccTLD, you must submit to the gTLD WHOIS policy, for example.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I guess your suggestion, “that IANA functions should never be exploited for political purposes” is a good, if only a partial, response to the issue that the IANA functions operator should not use its “power”
to overrule the applicable policy basis for a ccTLD (however this might be defined under local circumstances).
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Martin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 09 March 2015 22:42<br>
<b>To:</b> Martin Boyle; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Principles: revised draft 9 March<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Martin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I am fine with all of it except 7 ii. <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The troublesome part is <span style="color:#1F497D">
“</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt">For ccTLDs, respect national sovereignty.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Moreover I don’t think you need language that causes so much potential trouble. It is sufficient to say,
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">“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><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span lang="EN-US">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 style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Martin Boyle<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 9, 2015 1:35 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CWG-Stewardship] Principles: revised draft 9 March<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Colleagues,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Looking at the remaining highlighted changes:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">5.ii & iii: These are mainly editorial and have been discussed without opposition on recent calls.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">6.ii: Was agreed as not being a principle last week.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">7.i: Editing agreed last week.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">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>Given the delicate balance behind this text, I hope that others will find this formulation acceptable</b> and I thank Erick for his support in finding this compromise.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">10: A reasonable edit proposed by Mary last week: no objections have been raised.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">5.iv: I suggest we use the new wording unless there is significant opposition.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">8.ii: Again I suggest we use the proposed wording unless there is significant opposition.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Martin<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>