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

Mon Aug 29 23:05:47 UTC 2016

Hi all,

Becky is completely correct in her statement below.

1. The GAC developed what they refer to as their "Principles and 
Guidelines for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code Top 
Level Domains" - and it is impossible to determine what the GAC 
considered what might be an actual policy principle, and what might be a 
guideline. In any case, the paper has never been through any formal 
ICANN Policy process, and there is no consensus from the community as to 
its adoption.

2. The Preamble of these GAC Principles and Guidelines states as 1.1 
"The purpose of this document is to set out a general framework of 
principles and guidelines for the relationship between national 
governments, the Registry of the country code associated with that 
country, and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 
(ICANN). However, the situation varies significantly between countries. 
This framework is intended to help establish, not constrain or dictate, 
the development of the three-way relationship. Governments, country code 
Top Level Domain (ccTLD) Registries and ICANN share the responsibility 
for ensuring a Domain Name System that is stable, secure, open, and 
easily accessible." So right from the outset, it is an encouragement to 
engage in dialogue between ICANN, the ccTLD operator and the relevant 
Government

3. As Becky points out below, these GAC Principles can (as per 1.3 of 
the document) only ever apply bindingly when the Government, the ccTLD 
and the Government agree they should. This statement also validates that 
existing ccTLD operations remain valid if any party refuses to accept 
the GAC Principles.

4. The work of the FOI Working Group and its predecessor Delegations and 
Redelegations Working Group examined many documents which attempted to 
codify policies relating to ccTLD management, including several RFC's, 
some ICANN created documents, and the two versions of the GAC Principles 
(from 2000 and 2005). These Working Groups were cross-constituency 
groups within ICANN, and included multiple members of the GAC 
constituency amongst the groups. The clear decisions of the Working 
Groups were that RFC1591 provided the founding policy principles for 
ccTLD Delegation and Redelegation, and that some useful guidance and 
enhancement of the understanding of RFC1591 could be derived from the 
guidelines included in the 2005 GAC Principles. But it must be clearly 
understood that clause 1.3 of the GAC Principles does confine the 
applicability to those instances where there is a 3 way agreement 
between the Government, the ccTLD and ICANN

5. One aspect that seriously needs to be considered in this is the lack 
of clarity in many instances over who is (or is not) the valid 
Government of a country. A useful example might be Antarctica, where at 
least 13 different Governments claim some form of sovereignty. Which of 
these Governments is the proper authority for the operation of the .aq 
ccTLD ? Section 4.2 of RFC 1591 contains the powerful assertion that 
"The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not a 
country". Recognising that many wars have been fought over the "lines in 
the sand" that provide jurisdictional demarcation points is an important 
high level principle.

6. The ICANN Board has recognised the Framework of Interpretation, and 
is implementing its recommendations as part of its IANA 
responsibilities. The FoI develops some colour and depth on some of the 
vagueness of RFC1591, while at the same time, does not seek to create 
any new policy. The FOI has referred back to the ccNSO that there is 
need for policy development in some specific areas of ccTLD 
administration, most particularly the "Retirement" of a ccTLD and an 
Appeals Mechanism where there is dissent on a delegation / redelegation 
decision - as RFC1591 is largely silent on these topics.

I hope this clarifies the thinking, and apologise for the long-winded 
post, but it is important for the CWG group to have a clear 
understanding of the issues, and status of these items.

Cheers

Keith Davidson

On 30-Aug-16 9:04 AM, Burr, Becky wrote:
> 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=
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus