[bylaws-coord] Agreed text for the first sentence of the Mission

Thu Apr 21 06:02:37 UTC 2016

This text is better than the previous one as suggested by dome other person and conveyed by Holly
Kavouss  

Sent from my iPhone

> On 21 Apr 2016, at 05:37, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Would it make more sense to clarify that the reference is to consensus policies (see below)?
> 
> Greg
> 
>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:
>> FYI, we are also discussing this language with Registries and Registrars (thanks Keith)
>> 
>> “Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System, and the associated consensus policies governing the allocation and assignment of names by gTLD registry operators and ICANN accredited registrars.”
>> 
>> 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: <Burr>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>
>> Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 3:37 PM
>> To: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
>> Cc: ICANN-Adler <ICANN at adlercolvin.com>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran at icann.org>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>, "bylaws-coord at icann.org" <bylaws-coord at icann.org>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [bylaws-coord] Agreed text for the first sentence of the Mission
>> 
>> Yes, I’ve put it out for broader comment Milton.  But Keith is the other Registry SG rep on the CCWG, so that is why I checked with him first
>> 
>> 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: <Mueller>, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>> Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 3:35 PM
>> To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
>> Cc: ICANN-Adler <ICANN at adlercolvin.com>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran at icann.org>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>, "bylaws-coord at icann.org" <bylaws-coord at icann.org>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos at icann.org>
>> Subject: RE: [bylaws-coord] Agreed text for the first sentence of the Mission
>> 
>> Hmmm, not sure that the two largest incumbent registries with established contracts are all that we need to hear from, is there a way to interface with the broader group?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2:56 PM
>> To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>; Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
>> Cc: ICANN-Adler <ICANN at adlercolvin.com>; Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran at icann.org>; Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>; bylaws-coord at icann.org; Amy Stathos <amy.stathos at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [bylaws-coord] Agreed text for the first sentence of the Mission
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I have chatted with Keith Drazek and we are now comfortable
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 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: <Mueller>, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>> Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 2:43 PM
>> To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
>> Cc: ICANN-Adler <ICANN at adlercolvin.com>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran at icann.org>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>, "bylaws-coord at icann.org" <bylaws-coord at icann.org>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos at icann.org>
>> Subject: RE: [bylaws-coord] Agreed text for the first sentence of the Mission
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Becky
>> 
>> Does this mean we are waiting for you to sound out the registries, and registrars, on whether they find this acceptable?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I agree with Andrew that it is up to registries and registrars to tell us whether they consider this acceptable or not. From my limited point of view, it seemed a bit expansive but not as bad as some of the alternatives. I share Andrew’s concerns, however, so if the Rys and Rrs don’t see this expanding the scope of the picket fence it would be hard for others to object. They are the most directly affected party and any objections are not going to go anywhere without their support anyway.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> --MM
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From:bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org [mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky
>> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 8:18 PM
>> To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
>> Cc: ICANN-Adler <ICANN at adlercolvin.com>; Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran at icann.org>; Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>; bylaws-coord at icann.org; Amy Stathos <amy.stathos at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [bylaws-coord] Agreed text for the first sentence of the Mission
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> +1.  I feel somewhat concerned and have reached out to confirm this works as a way forward. 
>> 
>> Becky Burr
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 18, 2016, at 20:01, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:46:54PM +0000, Rosemary E. Fei wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> “Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System, and the allocations and assignment of names by gTLD registry operators and ICANN accredited registrars.”
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> As I suggested on the call yesterday, I have some reservations about
>> this, but I'll swallow them.
>> 
>> I continue to believe it is factually incorrect.  Registries and
>> registrars do the actual allocation and assignment.  ICANN is the
>> organization in which those other organizations convene in order to
>> co-ordinate their policies, and ICANN imposes such co-ordination as a
>> condition of being able to operate within the ICANN-controlled domain
>> name space.  But if gTLD registries and ICANN-accredited registrars
>> aren't going to complain, I'm not going to either.  It is an enormous
>> improvement over the previous proposal (to remove "in the root zone").
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> A
>> 
>> -- 
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> bylaws-coord mailing list
>> bylaws-coord at icann.org
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_bylaws-2Dcoord&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=izCs56de1r2-Zt3o2zjGkSZDCKrCfRg_v6QRHpz8hDc&s=6WA8BnBiHUhs1bOsIF-nGDLKeR2D_8BhFIdaWmCB76Q&e=
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> bylaws-coord mailing list
>> bylaws-coord at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bylaws-coord mailing list
> bylaws-coord at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bylaws-coord/attachments/20160421/88deae5d/attachment-0001.html>