[CWG-Stewardship] FW: Naming Function Agreement Review document

Mon Aug 29 04:38:16 UTC 2016

I feel that every element quoted in the naming agreement has very particular characteristics (the RFC has its own "status" description for instance), and we are not here to selectively quote such descriptions, which would lead us into debates that have different fora.

Hence I would suggest that we do not engage in such an exercise and just refer to the different elements, be it request for comments, GAC principles, etc. in general and "as applicable".

best

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 28.08.2016 um 23:33 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>:

RFC 1591 is generally applicable policy that applies (at a minimum) to all ccTLDs delegated since its promulgation in 1994.  On the other hand, the GAC Principles (2005) are not, as the GAC text clearly sets out, principles that IANA can apply absent the agreement of the relevant government and the ccTLD manager.  Rather, as the text of the GAC Principles (2005) explicitly provide:

1.3. These principles are intended as a guide to the relationships between Governments, their ccTLD and ICANN. They are not intended to be binding and need both Governments and Registries voluntarily to agree to apply them within their legal framework. If either the Government or the Registry decide not to adopt the principles, this cannot be held against the Registry, and the Registry still has a valid existence.

Accordingly, I do not understand why it is inappropriate to refer to the text of the GAC Principles (2005) to ensure absolute fidelity to those principles.

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<http://www.neustar.biz>

From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
Date: Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 10:46 AM
To: Yuko Green <yuko.green at icann.org<mailto:yuko.green at icann.org>>
Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Naming Function Agreement Review document

Dear Elise,, Dear Beckie
I did make the same comments in different occasions that addition of such qualifier is unacceptable
But someone whom I do not want to name, referred me in an INAPPROPRIATE CONTEXT to the practice of some courts in one country to which I totally disagrred but the co-chairs concerned  did not listen to me.
Now I am happy that you raised this issue to which I fully agree and request its removal
Regards
Kavouss

2016-08-26 18:56 GMT+02:00 Yuko Green <yuko.green at icann.org<mailto:yuko.green at icann.org>>:
Dear Elise,

Thank you for your comment. I am forwarding this to the correct CWG mail list.

Regards,
Yuko

From: Lindeberg, Elise [mailto:elise.lindeberg at Nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg at Nkom.no>]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 6:29 AM
To: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>; Yuko Green <yuko.green at icann.org<mailto:yuko.green at icann.org>>
Subject: Naming Function Agreement Review document

Dear Yuko

Regarding the comments made by Paul Kane on section 4,7  - n/a in the Naming Function Agreement Review document.

- Section 4.7 and subsequent is formulated as a  general reference to relevant and equivalent policies that must be considered by the contractor. Special reference to section 1.3 ,  - and the “where applicable” in connection with the GAC principles in section 4.7 and subsequent is unbalanced in this context - the contractor will have to consider and substantiate the relevance of all mentioned/listed policies in its decisions and actions. So, in short form - I don’t agree with the adding of “”were applicable”  or special reference to any subsection of the referenced documents such as section 1.3 of the GAC principles.

4.7

2.     The reference to the GAC Principles should read: “Where applicable in accordance with Section 1.3 thereof, the 2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and Guidelines for the Delgation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains (“GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles”).

We’d like to understand more about the need for specific reference to Section 1.3.  We are interested in accommodating this request, but need a bit more information.

ICANN would like more information regarding the need for specific reference to Section 1.3.

n/a

Any subsequent reference to the GAC Principles should read, “where applicable in accordance with Section 1.3 thereof, the GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles.”

See above.

ICANN would like more information regarding the need for specific reference to Section 1.3.

Elise Lindeberg
Senior Legal Adviser
Norwegian GAC representative
Norwegian Communications Authority
Dir. +47 22 824607<tel:%2B47%2022%20824607> Mob. +47 90190947<tel:%2B47%2090190947>
ekl at nkom.no<mailto:ekl at nkom.no>

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=BGrSIgRFMeTRdXfe1DnItybCuVH36kHiss8EaNWMy3c&s=TW65U4Hl9kja9BVIMuuVHL0gy2m0WMjTyVE9BkkYnxI&e=>

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship