[CCWG-ACCT] Additional Document for discussion

[Burr, Becky]

Actually Bruce, I think the new gTLD policy is within the Picket Fence
(naming issue that requires or is substantially benefitted by
coordination).  ICANN does not have a legal right to impose obligations on
the contracted parties related to stuff that is outside the PF. But the
lines have been muddied from time to time.  I would argue that the
stability and security review provided for in the RSEP policies is within
the PF, but the competition prong of that review is outside the PF.


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 / www.neustar.biz






On 2/17/15, 3:08 AM, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
wrote:

>>>  Just one addition ­ although the Bylaws are a little fuzzy on this
>>>point, Consensus Policy can only be developed to address issues that
>>>are within the ³picket fence² - issues related to names and numbers
>>>that require/substantially benefit from coordination.  Specification 1
>>>in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and the Registry Agreement lay
>>>this out.  In other words, the ³picket fence² limits ICANN¹s ability to
>>>impose obligations on registries and registrars that are outside of its
>>>³mission."
>
>
>To complicate further the GNSO can recommend by consensus that ICANN
>adopt policies that relate to  generic top-level domains that don¹t
>directly relate to an existing registry/registrar contract.   The policy
>on new gTLDs is example.
>
>The consensus policies within a picket fence require existing registries
>and registrars  to comply with the new policy ­ e.g. registrar to
>registrar transfers policies.
>
>Regards,
>
>Bruce Tonkin