[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 5 - Mission - 3rd reading conclusions
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Mon Jan 25 20:25:40 UTC 2016
Actually on this particular subject, myself and you are both speaking
un-authoritatively(at least for me). The one with final view on all these,
is the representatives of the numbers community (NRO-EC and NRO-NC(which
also doubles as ASO)).
It may therefore be good to ask the numbers community what they prefer and
if ICANN board okays it then we are good to go. I have only stated my
personal views based on my experience (little as it may be) within the
On 25 Jan 2016 9:02 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> Dear all,
> If something was incorrectly in the current text that does not justify to
> follow that inappropriate text.
> If you hold someone upside down for a century it does not justify to
> continue to do that.
> Is there is a dictatorship it does not mean that dsmocracy should not be
> put in place democracy.
> Inappropriate precedence SHALL NOT be pursued .
> I therefore have difficulties to accept ratification.
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 25 Jan 2016, at 19:04, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Kavous,
> The word ratify has been existing on the gPDP and other RIR PDP documents
> and does not pose any misunderstanding.
> gPDP(section 6a):
> The reason why it may be good to include that word is to ensure that the 2
> current roles of ICANN as it concerns numbers is clearly captured (re
> policy and operator wise).
> For instance ICANN(IANA) only implements the IETF protocols (I am told
> there was a time board approval was in the loop), so if we used the word
> implement only, we may not be clearly reflecting the role of ICANN on
> numbers globally.
> Whether ICANN should remain in the position of ratifying global policies
> is a question that I believe is out of scope for this WG.
> On 25 Jan 2016 17:52, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Becky,
>> Thanks for search and your three options .
>> I personally support your option 2 since Options 1 and 3 uses the term"
>> ratifies" which is very strong words and has a high level of legal
>> connotations due to the fact that we may need to specify the criteria of
>> ratification ( simple majority, super majority and so on....)whereas the
>> term " implement" has an operational cobnnotation.
>> 2016-01-25 17:39 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>:
>>> Update in advance of call:
>>> The ASO language still seems to be something of a moving target. I
>>> believe the following 3 versions are in play:
>>> Version 1: Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most
>>> level of Internet Protocol ("IP") and Autonomous System ("AS") numbers. Further,
>>> it ratifies, at the global level, policies related to these IP and AS
>>> numbers and developed according to the ICANN Address Supporting
>>> Organization (ASO) Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the Number
>>> Resource Organization dated 21 October, 2004, as may be amended from time
>>> to time in accordance with its terms.
>>> Version 2: Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most
>>> level of Internet Protocol (“IP”) and Autonomous System (“AS”) numbers.
>>> Further, it implements, at the global level, policies related to these
>>> IP and AS numbers and developed pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding
>>> between ICANN and the Number Resource Organization dated 21 October,
>>> 2004, as may be amended from time to time in accordance with its terms.
>>> Version 3: Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most
>>> level of Internet Protocol (“IP”) and Autonomous System (“AS”) numbers.
>>> Further, it ratifies and implements, at the global level, policies
>>> related to these IP and AS numbers and developed pursuant to the ICANN
>>> Address Supporting Organization (ASO) Memorandum of Understanding between
>>> ICANN and the Number Resource Organization dated 21 October, 2004, as
>>> may be amended from time to time in accordance with its terms.
>>> *J. Beckwith Burr*
>>> *Neustar, Inc.* / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
>>> *Office:* +1.202.533.2932 *Mobile:* +1.202.352.6367 */* *neustar.biz*
>>> From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>
>>> Date: Monday, January 25, 2016 at 5:05 AM
>>> To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 5 - Mission - 3rd reading
>>> *Sent on behalf of CoChairs *
>>> Please find below the conclusions (3rd reading) of our mission
>>> deliberations during call #78. The updated document is attached.
>>> 1. On Consumer Trust: agreement to keep Third Draft Proposal language.
>>> Reference to Consumer Trust should not be added to Core Values. It will be
>>> included at part of AOC reviews.
>>> 2. Discuss ALAC concern regarding removal of the words “where feasible
>>> and appropriate” in Core Value 4 that states : Depending on market
>>> mechanisms to promote and sustain a healthy competitive environment in the
>>> DNS market
>>> 3. Awaiting Board input on root servers
>>> 4. On numbers language, wordsmithing is needed based on input from
>>> lawyers - see
>>> and proposed language from ASO: "Coordinates the allocation and assignment
>>> at the top-most level of Internet Protocol (“IP”) and Autonomous System
>>> (“AS”) numbers. Further, it ratifies, at the global level, policies related
>>> to these IP and AS numbers and developed according to the ASO-MoU."
>>> 5. On RSSAC language:
>>> [RSSAC PROPOSED TEXT: Facilitates coordinatesion of the operation and
>>> evolution of the DNS root name server system.]
>>> [BOARD PROPOSED TEXT: Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS
>>> root name server system. In this role, ICANN’s Mission is to [to be
>>> provided by RSSAC]. ICANN retains an operational role as well as considers
>>> inputs from the communities dependent on the root server system.]
>>> 6. Discuss the issue around the scope of ICANN’s agreements with
>>> contracted parties (page 10). 3rd draft provisions are :
>>> a. ICANN shall not impose regulations on services that use the
>>> Internet’s unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or
>>> b. ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce
>>> agreements with contracted parties in furtherance service of its Mission.
>>> c. Take into consideration legal advice : “For clients facing similar
>>> dilemmas, a common approach is to draft general principles into governing
>>> documents and provide a mechanism for interpreting them in specific
>>> situations. We recommend that the CCWG agree upon and articulate mission
>>> principles at a general level appropriate for inclusion in the Bylaws,
>>> understanding that refinement and interpretation will be needed
>>> 7. Grandfathering. Discuss questions raised by lawyers :
>>> a. What is the effective cut-off date for the grandfathering? This
>>> could be a specified date in the future, or could be an event, such as the
>>> date of adoption of the relevant Fundamental Bylaw.
>>> b. Should RAs that are in the process of being put in place but have not
>>> yet been finalized and signed as of the effective date, be included or
>>> excluded? If that should depend on how far along in the process they are,
>>> what should be the standard for deciding that point?
>>> c. Should renewals of existing RAs, unchanged, that contain PICs covered
>>> by the grandfathering clause, be included? If so, should there be a limit
>>> on the number of renewals that will be covered? Should grandfathering
>>> cover PICs that are not modified, even though other provisions of the
>>> agreement are changed?
>>> d. What if an existing RA/RAA includes a grandfathered PIC, and the
>>> agreement is modified, by mutual agreement or otherwise -- is it still
>>> e. Should all grandfathering have a sunset date, i.e., a point far
>>> enough in the future on which all grandfathering protection will expire?
>>> 8. Discuss request to provide impact assessment as requested by several
>>> group members.
>>> Fourth reading is planned for Tuesday, 26 January.
>>> Best regards
>>> Mathieu, Thomas, León
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community