[WP1] Frozen: AoC reviews into bylaws

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Thanks for these.

I think something like P 3 has to be there.  Perhaps there is better
langauge. 

Re page 6, good catch, could probably put it on timed cycle.  I expect
it will be a while before new gTLDs become uneventful.  All of the
periodic reviews can be canceled when appropriate.

On Page 7 I appreciate the idea of changing that AOC like text and would
be happy to work on a revision.

On the last one, page 8, we will still have to do a review for names, no
matter who holds the IANA functions contract.  ICANN community will
still be the caretaker of that contract. 

thanks

avri


On 14-Jul-15 19:43, Steve Crocker wrote:
> Jordan, et al,
>
> Attached is my markup of the material on bringing AoC reviews into the
> ICANN bylaws.  In brief, I think this is an excellent idea and I
> strongly support it.  Further, I appreciate the modifications that
> have already been made from the detailed language in the AoC to the
> language proposed here.  That said, a bit more work is needed.
>
> My comments in the marked up attachment cover the following (language
> from the document highlighted followed by my comment):
>
> On page 3:
>
>>     although the designation of sensitive / confidential should not
>>     be in ICANN’s sole discretion.
>
>
>     I fully understand and appreciate the reason for inserting this
>     caveat, but I don’t understand how this caveat helps.  When push
>     comes to shove, ICANN Counsel is going to insist on adherence to
>     the non-disclosure rules else the requested information won’t be
>     forthcoming.  I suppose you can threaten to escalate but that’s
>     not a productive path.
>
>
> On page 6:
>
>>     The Board shall cause a review of ICANN’s execution of this
>>     commitment after any batched round of new gTLDs have been in
>>     operation for one year
>
>     This language presumes the addition of new TLDs will be done in
>     rounds similar to the current round of new gTLDs.  What happens if
>     the process evolves toward continuous operation?
>
>     Even if the system of rounds is maintained, it is likely the
>     process will settle down.  Successive reviews will be
>     progressively less meaningful. 
>
>
> On page 7:
>
>>     *Such existing policy requires that ICANN implement measures to
>>     maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and
>>     complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical,
>>     billing, and administrative contact information.* 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     This is the language in the AoC that was inappropriate from the
>     beginning and must not be continued.  The entire thrust of the
>     effort kicked off by the Board in November 2012 was to examine the
>     purpose and expectations of the registrant data system,
>     particularly including the potential for tiered access, protection
>     of registrant data, etc.
>
>     I have no problem with keeping some form of review, but the
>     language needs to be adjusted to match the potential for future
>     systems that may emerge from the ongoing examination of the
>     registration data.
>
>
>>     *its implementation meets **the **legitimate needs of law
>>     enforcement and promotes consumer trust.*
>
>     This language puts Law Enforcement in the premier position with
>     respect to evaluating the effectiveness of the registration data
>     system.  Law Enforcement is indeed important, but not to the
>     exclusion of all others.  “Promotes consumer trust” is too vague
>     to cover all of the competing forces.
>
> On page 8:
>
>>     The CWG-Stewardship has also proposed an IANA Function Review
>>     that should be added to the ICANN Bylaws, as a Fundamental Bylaw. 
>
>     What happens in the event the IANA function is moved away from
>     ICANN?  It would be impossible to comply with this bylaw.  It
>     seems to me a termination clause is needed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 14, 2015, at 12:55 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> From Steve's team, please find attached the frozen document on the
>> incorporation of the AoC reviews into the bylaws, for discussion in
>> Paris.
>>
>> Thanks for all the work done on this.
>>
>> best,
>> Jordan
>>
>> -- 
>> Jordan Carter
>>
>> Chief Executive
>> *InternetNZ*
>>
>> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
>> jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>> Skype: jordancarter
>>
>> /A better world through a better Internet /
>>
>> <2015-07-12-DRAFT-PC2--6-2--AoC-Reviews.docx><2015-07-12-DRAFT-PC2--6-2--AoC-Reviews.pdf>_______________________________________________
>> WP1 mailing list
>> WP1 at icann.org <mailto:WP1 at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus