[CWG-Stewardship] ICANN-PTI Services Agreement

[Paul M Kane - CWG]

Hi Chris

(sorry for the delay I need to consult with the ccTLDs that raised the issue
with me first).  Sidley tried to capture the legal language in their Annex C
paper - it may not have been perfect but it was a good attempt.

I don't think it is new ... nor late (just forgotten) .... and everything to do
with PTI/ICANN.  

It would be sensible to capture the different responsibilites expected from
ICANN/PTI at this time especially as the current Section 3 i c ii of the draft
of the Naming Agreement is incorrect.

1591 pre-dates ICANN and (some) ccTLDs have an opt-out from having to be
impacted by ICANN Policy which has been enshrined and respected in ICANN's own
Bylaws since day 1. (ARTICLE IX, Section 4, Clause 10).

Others, like AU have formal agreements with ICANN (not dis-similar to the early
gTLD) that outlines the roles and responsibilities

Others fall in between the two with and exchange of letters that define the
limited role ICANN has and stipulate the role ccTLD Registries have in serving
their communities.

Best

Paul

Quoting Chris Disspain <chris at disspain.uk>:

> Hi Paul,
> 
> > Bottom line is the vast majority ccTLDs do not want to appoint ICANN in
> charge
> > of their enteries in the ROOT zone - (some ccTLDs - around 10 have
> agreements
> > with ICANN which does outline the relationship - such as .AU) but the 240+
> > others don't!"
> > 
> > Where has this been respected/recognised please?
> 
> 
> The changes drafts of the agreement and annex reflect, I think, the input
> from the ccTLDs and correct the language in the first draft around the status
> of the FoI and GAC principles. There may be some more tinkering to do on
> those points but any issues will doubtless be raised in the public comment.
> 
> Your point appears to be a different one that is nothing to do with the PTI
> but is, rather, seeking to insert statements of principle at this extremely
> late stage. Or if I'm wrong and your point is relevant to the PTI then surely
> this is something that should be raised by you and other ccTLDs in the public
> comment isn't it? 
> 
> Or have I misunderstood? 
> 
> Cheers,
>  
> Chris
> 
> > On 22 Aug 2016, at 15:16, Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > 
> > Thanks Trang
> > 
> > I have been asking members of the ccTLD community for their guidance on
> the
> > draft Agreement and to make sure they are satisfied with Annex C being
> > incorporated. (I have yet to read the latest draft).
> > 
> > Also the CWG asked that I seek clarification as to what was meant by the
> opening
> > remarks in Section 1.
> > 
> > The comments I received by email were:
> > 
> > 
> > "Bottom line is the vast majority ccTLDs do not want to appoint ICANN in
> charge
> > of their enteries in the ROOT zone - (some ccTLDs - around 10 have
> agreements
> > with ICANN which does outline the relationship - such as .AU) but the 240+
> > others don't!"
> > 
> > Where has this been respected/recognised please?
> > 
> > I have subsequently been asked (as the original person advocating) by a
> > different ccTLD Rep for a status report regarding the promised end-to-end
> > automation for an updates to the Root Zone... 
> > 
> > I have said that this is not part of the transition and may occur later,
> but I'd
> > welcome ICANN/IANA's response just to accurately convey the message to the
> ccTLD
> > Community.
> > 
> > Thanks 
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Quoting Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen at icann.org>:
> > 
> >> All,
> >> 
> >> Please see attached a draft of the ICANN-PTI services agreement.
> >> 
> >> Best,
> >> 
> >> Trang
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>