[WP2] By law change on international law WAS Re: IRP provider appointment Was: updated documents from this morning
Mathieu Weill
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Wed Jul 29 19:28:30 UTC 2015
Hi becky, All,
I have no idea about impacts, but would rather we stick with the current
version of the Articles and not introduce any last minute change on this
now. Unless we have a clear rationale, related to our current motives
for updating the Mission & core values.
Best
Mathieu
Le 29/07/2015 20:39, Burr, Becky a écrit :
> The change was to clarify that ICANN has subjected itself to
> international law – which includes conventions, etc. This language is
> exactly the language that is in the Articles of Incorporation. I’m
> happy to put applicable in front of everything
>
> J. Beckwith Burr
>
> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
>
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>
> Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 /
> becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz
>
>
> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 2:36 PM
> To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>
> Cc: Paul Twomey <Paul.Twomey at argopacific.com
> <mailto:Paul.Twomey at argopacific.com>>, "wp2 at icann.org
> <mailto:wp2 at icann.org>" <wp2 at icann.org <mailto:wp2 at icann.org>>,
> Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net <mailto:malcolm at linx.net>>
> Subject: Re: [WP2] By law change on international law WAS Re: IRP
> provider appointment Was: updated documents from this morning
>
> Article 4 currently reads:
>
> The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet
> community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with
> relevant principles of international law and applicable international
> conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and
> consistent with these Articles and its Bylaws, through open and
> transparent processes that enable competition and open entry in
> Internet-related markets.
>
> It seems that we moved the word "applicable" so that it no longer
> applies "international conventions and local law" and now only applies
> to "local law." I can't recall the rationale for this change. Based
> on Paul's email, I'm concerned that it is not a change for the
> better. Any idea why we made this change, and it what it was supposed
> to accomplish? If we don't have a good reason to make the change, I
> suggest we should not make it. If it was a concern about ambiguity,
> then I suggest we put "applicable" in front of both "international
> conventions" and "local law."
>
> Greg
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
> <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>> wrote:
>
> Good question. The reference to international law and conventions
> has been in the Articles of Incorporation from day 1, however. I
> think if we take out the comma and make it “relevant principles of
> international law and international conventions” that reduces the
> potential problem. But international information security is only
> within ICANN’s mission if it relates to DNS security and stability
>
>
> J. Beckwith Burr
>
> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
>
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>
> Office: + 1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> Mobile:
> +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / becky.burr at neustar.biz
> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz
> <http://www.neustar.biz>
>
>
> From: Paul Twomey <Paul.Twomey at argopacific.com
> <mailto:Paul.Twomey at argopacific.com>>
> Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 2:04 PM
> To: "wp2 at icann.org <mailto:wp2 at icann.org>" <wp2 at icann.org
> <mailto:wp2 at icann.org>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz
> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net
> <mailto:malcolm at linx.net>>
> Subject: Re: By law change on international law WAS Re: [WP2] IRP
> provider appointment Was: updated documents from this morning
>
> While I do not think this is exactly the sort of agreement about
> which I am positing, I would draw your attention to the recent
> China-Russian declaration of April 30.
>
> A rough translation is attached.
>
> The official announcement that is on the Russian government web
> site says:
>
> "The directive approves a draft Russian-Chinese intergovernmental
> agreement on cooperation in ensuring international information
> security (hereinafter, the Agreement).
> The Agreement aims to create a legal and organisational framework
> for Russian-Chinese cooperation in promoting international
> information security.
> The Agreement identifies the principal threats and determines the
> main areas, principles, forms and mechanisms of cooperation in
> this area.
> The Russian Foreign Ministry has been tasked with conducting talks
> with the Chinese side and, after coming to terms, signing this
> Agreement on behalf of the Russian Government.
> The Agreement reflects Russia’s interests and position regarding
> the provision of international information security and
> consolidates Russian-Chinese strategic partnership, and its
> signing will help to promote mutually beneficial cooperation
> between Russia and China."
>
>
> _*Three main issues in the agreement*_
>
> 1. the document is signed, because the parties are concerned about
> using the ICT for “undermining the sovereignty and the security of
> the states, and interference in their internal affairs…
> destabilization of internal political and social-economic
> environment…”
> 2. The two governments confirm that "the national sovereignty and
> the international norms and regulations, result from this
> sovereignty, are defining the countries' behavior within the
> framework of their activities, connected to the use of ICT and the
> jurisdiction of the nation states over the information
> infrastructure on their territories, as well as the state has a
> sovereign right to define and to implement governmental policy,
> related to the information-telecommunication network "Internet"
> (everywhere in the original they call it like that), including
> security,
> 3. The two governments aim at creating a multilateral, democratic
> and transparent international system for management of the
> information-telecommunication network ‘Internet’ with the purpose
> of internationalization of the management of the Internet, and to
> make sure states have equal rights to participate in this process,
> including democratic management (governance) of the Internet core
> resources and their fair distribution..
>
>
> Previously such agreements have been of significance for ICANN as
> part of the political environment in which it has to operate. But
> it has been committed to its global mission. Is the amendment to
> the bylaws inadvertantly making it an internal governance matter
> for ICANN?
>
>
> Paul
>
>
> On 7/30/15 3:55 AM, Paul Twomey wrote:
>> +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 <tel:%2B1%20310%20279%202366> Aust M: +61 416 238 501
>> <tel:%2B61%20416%20238%20501>
>> www.argopacific.com
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.argopacific.com&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=0Dua7zZ-GfZGRCTgHMU-Nhicu-7Io2ciyfGYx4BAo9M&s=hx-su6o6R9sNfHQEgP0kLzBz41uvluLIOP3eo1Mofqk&e=>
>
> -- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P at cific US Cell: +1 310
> 279 2366 <tel:%2B1%20310%20279%202366> Aust M: +61 416 238 501
> <tel:%2B61%20416%20238%20501>www.argopacific.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.argopacific.com&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=0Dua7zZ-GfZGRCTgHMU-Nhicu-7Io2ciyfGYx4BAo9M&s=hx-su6o6R9sNfHQEgP0kLzBz41uvluLIOP3eo1Mofqk&e=>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP2 mailing list
> WP2 at icann.org <mailto:WP2 at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_wp2&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=4LtMP6cAkktdfs1_7JKpJKlqba6xaDNtmQ5M97SWNC4&s=cvTwYWhLqZq64MBYoXYMZ4iPUHOggWKsNRGfGzMGlSc&e=>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP2 mailing list
> WP2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2
--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2/attachments/20150729/336f8ed3/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the WP2
mailing list