[WP1] Frozen: AoC reviews into bylaws

Wed Jul 15 00:19:56 UTC 2015

Thanks.

Steve

On Jul 14, 2015, at 8:13 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1