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

Mon Aug 29 21:04:04 UTC 2016

If the concern is parallel construction or balance, I believe that ccTLDs
would be comfortable with referring to RFC 1591, as interpreted by the
FOI, and as applicable in accordance with its ³Status² statement.    Is
there some argument that Section 1.3 does not, in fact, clearly articulate
the applicability of the 2005 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>

On 8/29/16, 12:38 AM, "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch"
<Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

>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 ³where
>applicable² 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 don¹t agree with the
>adding of ³²were applicable²  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: ³Where 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 (³GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles²).
>
>We¹d 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, ³where
>applicable in accordance with Section 1.3 thereof, the GAC 2005 ccTLD
>Principles.²
>
>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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
>listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=DQIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6
>X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=8vZRXNclUd3WadryHcFyWk5m-0k-qzLBtS6NaDh
>wgrQ&s=EERZc4YI6S0SPfLhVuwGVFSg0ZlCSDjZ_1rvcm-dQak&e=
><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm
>6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=BGrSIgRFMeTRdXfe1DnItybCuVH36kHiss8EaN
>WMy3c&s=TW65U4Hl9kja9BVIMuuVHL0gy2m0WMjTyVE9BkkYnxI&e=>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
>listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=DQIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6
>X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=8vZRXNclUd3WadryHcFyWk5m-0k-qzLBtS6NaDh
>wgrQ&s=EERZc4YI6S0SPfLhVuwGVFSg0ZlCSDjZ_1rvcm-dQak&e= 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: default.xml
Type: application/xml
Size: 3222 bytes
Desc: default.xml
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160829/25c1361c/default.xml>