[CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs

Thu Dec 4 21:59:53 UTC 2014

Milton,

I'll take a quick stab at these questions, inline below.

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  I agree with what Becky Burr asserted below. But everyone seems to have
> lost track of what the original question was. Let me repeat:
>
>
>
> "The CWG is considering replacing the authorization role, at least with
> regard to ccTLDs, with a written opinion from counsel (independent of
> ICANN) that each delegation and re-delegation request meets the policy
> requirements cited in the publicly posted reports."
>
>  I simply asked:
>
>
>
> Where does this written opinion come from?
>

GS: Independent counsel.  Probably some poor shmuck in a very large law
firm with very good malpractice insurance.  Being a legal review, said
shmuck would review all of the relevant policy, and relevant implementation
guidance (hopefully with a fair amount of prior knowledge, so this is a
review not a major learning experience), and determine whether there was
any divergence between said policy and the del/redel request.  Since the
del/redel reports are supposed to cite to policy, this would not be too
much of a research project, assuming the del/redel request is filled out
accurately.

>
>
> And…
>
:

>
>
> What is the procedure for appointing an independent counsel to provide it?
>

GS: I don't think this has been discussed much.  I might suggest an RFP,
issued by the MRT.  This implies enough revenue to keep the lawyer(s) fed.

>
>
> Can someone simply try to answer that question?
>

GS: That's my try.  Frankly, I'm not overly enthusiastic about this
concept.  I'm not sure the task is well matched to the lawyers' skill set,
but, if it's a review against policy, it may not be a bad fit.  I guess
lawyers may be more willing to give this kind of opinion than some other
professionals. I might expect some caveats on that opinion, as lawyers do,
to keep their malpractice insurers happy.  So the question is, if not
lawyers, who is willing to be the last set of eyes before it goes to
Verisign to be entered into the root?.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 3, 2014 5:40 PM
> *To:* Erick Iriarte; Milton L Mueller
>
> *Cc:* CWG Stewardship
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs
>
>
>
> The ccNSO is the source of delegation/revocation policy, based on
> multistakeholder processes, consensus, etc.  That is very different from
> making a judgment in any particular case whether the policy is being
> applied properly.  There are also complicated national law and
> jurisdictional issues that arise in the ccTLD context.  As a ccTLD operator
> and a gTLD operator, I would want the right to challenge any
> revocation/redel decision on a case by case basis.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> *From: *Erick Iriarte <eiriarte at iriartelaw.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, December 2, 2014 at 12:12 PM
> *To: *Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> *Cc: *CWG Stewardship <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs
>
>
>
> Dear Milton
>
>
>
> almost is important to understand what is the basis of your comment, but
> is your decision share with us your opinion.
>
>
>
> Yours,
>
>
>
> Erick
>
>
>
>  El 2/12/2014, a las 12:00, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> escribió:
>
>
>
> Desiree:
>
> So, according to you, the lawyer (counsel) who authorizes
> delegations/redelegations would be provided by the ccNSO? Or from some
> other “group of ccTLDs”? what if the ccNSO lawyer had one opinion and the
> lawyer provided by another group had a different opinion? Not criticizing,
> just trying to understand what is being proposed.
>
>
>
> Erick:
>
> My opinion of the legal status of a ccTLD is not relevant to answering
> those questions. I repeat:  I am not criticizing the proposal, I am just
> trying to understand what is being proposed.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Desiree Miloshevic [mailto:dmiloshevic at afilias.info
> <dmiloshevic at afilias.info>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:51 AM
> *To:* Milton L Mueller
> *Cc:* CWG Stewardship
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs
>
>
>
> Milton
>
>
>
> Before you respond to Erick - I'll just say add that, for example, the
> ccNSO FOIWG worked on interpretation of RFC 1591 and other IANA related
> policy guidelines.
>
> http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-07oct14-en.pdf
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org_workinggroups_foi-2Dfinal-2D07oct14-2Den.pdf&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=11OyJb_p43oaQCyz7z_kxCYM3eereRRP4QbpFHQRdHE&e=>
>
>
>
> My understanding is that bodies like the ccNSO or group of ccTLDs are
> there to develop policies regarding the delegation and redelegation of
> ccTLDs.
>
> It's my personal view that it could potentially form such a council in
> future and give opinions. (independent of ICANN board).
>
>
>
> Desiree
>
> --
>
>
>
> On 2 Dec 2014, at 15:30, Erick Iriarte <eiriarte at iriartelaw.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>   Milton
> to understand better your message and position: for you exactly what is
> the legal status of a cctld ?
> Erick
>
>
>
>   El 2/12/2014, a las 10:16, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> escribió:
>
> I have some questions regarding this:
>
> "The CWG is considering replacing the authorization role, at least with
> regard to ccTLDs, with a written opinion from counsel (independent of
> ICANN) that each delegation and re-delegation request meets the policy
> requirements cited in the publicly posted reports."
>
> Where would this counsel come from?
> Whose counsel is it if it is independent of ICANN and ICANN is supplying
> the IANA service?
> Since most of the policy requirements related to ccTLD
> delegation/redelegation are not laws, but things like RFC 1591, on what
> basis is the counsel's opinion made? Precedent?
>
> Milton L. Mueller
> Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__faculty.ischool.syr.edu_mueller_mueller_Home.html&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=bpCyZSoPFLgpeMExf4dNVbcbUxg4Pj-rprkM5jhu2_0&e=>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=EjcamHe9JK8BbuiJdB-crMgejCYj46tP1nsm94dcLZQ&e=>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=EjcamHe9JK8BbuiJdB-crMgejCYj46tP1nsm94dcLZQ&e=>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=EjcamHe9JK8BbuiJdB-crMgejCYj46tP1nsm94dcLZQ&e=>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Erick Iriarte
> Área de Derecho de Nuevas Tecnologias
>
> IRIARTE & ASOCIADOS
> Dirección: Miró Quesada 191, of. 510, Lima 01, Perú
> Telefax: (+511) 2035400
> Sitio web: iriartelaw.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__iriartelaw.com&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=JE5klTXzrkV1vU4xATaXu1uPEoplII15yc8XUDkYYEo&e=>
> Twitter: @ialaw
> Facebook: facebook.com/ialaw
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__facebook.com_ialaw&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=zck_KKrcnUji57SgytbIp1pTarNrRaI-007tLxDDbv8&s=TvjUHmmf0tsD6zRkauhlcfgyhNhSbjstJ34QZMSa7KU&e=>
>
> Por favor antes de imprimir piense en nuestro medio ambiente, una hoja
> puede hacer la diferencia en un bosque.
>
> Please, before printing, think of our environment, a leaf can make a
> difference in a forest.
>
> Declaracion de Confidencialidad
> El contenido de este mensaje de correo electronico y de sus archivos
> adjuntos esta(n) dirigido(s) exclusivamente a el(los) destinatario(s) del
> mismo.  Adicionalmente, este mensaje y su contenido pueden
> ser privilegiados y estar cubiertos por la reserva profesional entre
> abogado y cliente.  Si usted no es el destinatario indicado, o si
> este mensaje le ha sido enviado por error, queda advertido en el sentido de
> no leer, divulgar, reproducir, distribuir, diseminar o utilizar
> este mensaje en forma alguna.  La entrega de este mensaje a cualquier
> persona diferente del(de los) destinatario(s) a quien(es) se ha dirigido no
> constituye una renuncia de privilegios o confidencialidad.  Si usted recibe
> este mensaje por error, por favor advierta al remitente mediante correo de
> respuesta; adicionalmente le  solicitamos que inmediatamente proceda a
> suprimir este mensaje y sus archivos adjuntos, si los hubiere.
>
> Statement of Confidentiality
> The contents of this e-mail message and its attachments are intended
> solely for the addressee(s) hereof.  In addition, this e-mail transmission
> may be confidential and it may be subject to privilege
> protecting communications between attorneys or solicitors and their
> clients.  If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been
> addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose,
> reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this e-mail.  Delivery
> of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is
> not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality.  If you have
> received this transmission in error, please alert the sender by reply
> e-mail; we also request that you immediately delete this message and
> its attachments, if any. Please, before printing, think of our environment,
> a leaf can make a difference in a forest.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141204/68dbf4c2/attachment-0001.html>