[WP2] By law change on international law WAS Re: IRP provider appointment Was: updated documents from this morning

[Paul Twomey]

+1 to Malcolm's comment on how much has been achieved.

I am sorry that I was not able to attend Paris, but may I ask a question 
about the amendment including international conventions in:

1.In performing its Mission, ICANN must operate in a manner consistent 
with its Bylaws for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, 
carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of 
international law, international conventions, and applicable local law 
and through open and transparent processes that enable competition and 
open entry in Internet-related markets.  Specifically, ICANN’s action must:


Did the group consider the situation where two or more authoritarian 
countries sign an international statement or convention recognizing that 
the DNS in their countries can only be coordinated by their country 
institutions or worse recognizing that it can only be done by 
multilateral organizations etc.    Would this constitute an 
"international convention" - a much less universal term than 
"international law" - and hence would ICANN be bound by this bylaw to 
recognize this?  Hence not be able to run a complete Root Zone in the 
IANA, not be able to enter into registrar contracts for registrars in 
those countries etc.

Paul

On 7/29/15 8:25 PM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
> Becky,
>
> These papers looks very good, and shows how much we have achieved. We
> seem to be just about done, so congratulations.
>
> I can find on the paper just one note of disagreement still being
> recorded, relating to the appointment of the IRP Provider.
>
> * Greg had proposed that the appointment process be conducted by ICANN
> and the community jointly.
>
> * I had said I thought that this was likely to be unworkable, and that
> it would be sufficient to have ICANN consult the community on the terms
> of the tender process, but selection itself should be by ICANN.
>
> Where did we get to on this? I remember a back-and-forth between me and
> Greg on this list, but don't remember it being discussed by the group.
>
> -> If it hasn't been decided by WP2 collectively, may I ask that you
> test the group's opinion as to whether they prefer my approach or Greg's?
>
> -> If it has been decided and I just missed it, and the collective view
> was to prefer Greg's proposal, you may remove the footnote noting my
> disagreement: it is not my view that this is such a serious issue that I
> would want to preserve my objection as a minority statement to go into
> the Final Report for Public Comment.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Malcolm.
>

-- 
Dr Paul Twomey
Managing Director
Argo P at cific

US Cell: +1 310 279 2366
Aust M: +61 416 238 501

www.argopacific.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2/attachments/20150730/6bceb143/attachment.html>