[CWG-Stewardship] FW: ICANN-PTI Naming Functions Agreement & Services Agreement Headers

Thu Jul 28 05:59:23 UTC 2016

Dear all

Just to provide some clarification on one thing: the 2005 GAC ccTLD Principles remain a standing advice of the GAC. What was superseded (by GAC itself) were the 2000 GAC Principles.

When commenting on the FOI, in its Singapore Communique of 2015, the GAC made specific reference to its 2005 Principles:

“4. Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FOIWG) Report

The GAC notes the work of the ccNSO FOIWG, and its efforts to provide interpretive clarity to RFC1591. The GAC welcomes the FOIWG’s recognition that, consistent with the GAC’s 2005 Principles, the ultimate authority on public policy issues relating to ccTLDs is the relevant government. As such, nothing in the FOIWG report should be read to limit or constrain applicable law and governmental decisions, or the IANA operator´s ability to act in line with a request made by the relevant government.”

I would be reluctant to "relitigate" such issues in this venue.

Best regards

Jorge

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Paul M Kane - CWG
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juli 2016 20:23
An: Lise Fuhr <Fuhr at etno.eu>
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Betreff: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: ICANN-PTI Naming Functions Agreement & Services Agreement Headers

Hi Lise

Thanks for giving us a preview of the Naming Functions Agreement.

I have not read the detail of the Naming Agreement yet but I do see that there is frequent reference to the GAC Principles relating to ccTLDs.

i) the ICANN Board has never adopted the advise given in the GAC Principles 2005;

ii) The Framework of Interpretation (

https://features.icann.org/adoption-framework-interpretation-cctld-delegations-and-redelegations

) for ccTLD Delegations and Redelegations which was developed by Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FOIWG) and reviewed by CCNSO and considered by the GAC and approved by the ICANN Board on Thu, 25 Jun 2015 - Resolution Number:

2015.06.25.07 – 2015.06.25.08

specifically says

"certain documents including the GAC Principles 2000 (which the GAC superseded in 2005).....  should be archived and considered no longer used by ICANN staff."

However I note in the Naming Functions Agreement there are multiple references to the GAC Principles..... which obviously should not be cited.

I assume that references to the GAC Principles will be removed as in ICANN's own words they ..... "should be archived and considered no longer used by ICANN staff."

Kind regards

Paul

Quoting Lise Fuhr <Fuhr at etno.eu<mailto:Fuhr at etno.eu>>:

> Dear All,

>

> Please see the attached Naming Functions Agreement which the comments

> from Sidley. We have a CWG call on Thursday where we can discuss the

> issues raised by Sidley.

>

> Best,

> Lise

>

> From: cwg-client-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces at icann.org>

> [mailto:cwg-client-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Hofheimer, Joshua T.

> Sent: 26 July 2016 03:20

> To: Client Committee

> Cc: Greeley, Amy E.

> Subject: Re: [client com] ICANN-PTI Naming Functions Agreement &

> Services Agreement Headers

>

> Client Committee -- Attached is a further revised draft of Sidleyâ€™s

> comments to the Naming Functions Agreement.  For convenience, we have

> included a clean Word version, a cumulative PDF redline against the

> ICANN draft, and an internal redline against the version we sent yesterday.

>

> Please note, we have not undertaken a formal review of the Naming

> Functions Agreement against Annex C.  We are looking for guidance from

> the CWG as to whether the provisions that the CWG drafted to implement

> Annex C (as described in the Implementation Proposal dated June 9,

> 2016) will be incorporated in the bylaws or the naming function

> agreement.  Once this determination is made, we can ensure that the

> provisions are appropriately documented, if requested.

>

> Cheers,

> Josh

>

> Joshua Hofheimer

> Sidley Austin LLP

> jhofheimer at sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer at sidley.com>

> (213) 896-6061 (LA direct)

> (650) 565-7561 (Palo Alto direct)

> (323) 708-2405 (cell)

>

> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T.

> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 12:50 PM

> To: 'Client Committee'

> Cc: Resnick, Yael; Flanagan, Sharon; Gregory, Holly; Grapsas, Rebecca;

> Greeley, Amy E.

> Subject: RE: ICANN-PTI Naming Functions Agreement & Services Agreement

> Headers

>

> Dear Client Committee â€“ If you have not already started reviewing

> the attached, please hold for a few hours.  We will have a revised

> draft to you shortly with further observations on the connections to

> the ICANN Bylaws, and some additional revisions.

>

> Thanks,

> Josh

>

> Joshua Hofheimer

> Sidley Austin LLP

> jhofheimer at sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer at sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer at sidley.com%3cmailto:jhofheimer at sidley.com>>

> (213) 896-6061 (LA direct)

> (650) 565-7561 (Palo Alto direct)

> (323) 708-2405 (cell)

>

> From: Hofheimer, Joshua T.

> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 4:02 PM

> To: Client Committee

> Cc: Resnick, Yael; Flanagan, Sharon; Gregory, Holly; Grapsas, Rebecca;

> Greeley, Amy E.

> Subject: ICANN-PTI Naming Functions Agreement & Services Agreement

> Headers

>

> Dear Client Committee,

>

> Attached please find proposed comments to the Naming Functions

> Agreement and the Services Agreement Headers, both clean and marked

> against the versions sent by ICANN.  Because the Services Agreement

> Headers received from ICANN was in PDF only, we converted to Word and

> added formatting.  However, this has made the redline look more

> atrocious than it actually is.  We are going to try to clean this up a

> little in the versions to go to ICANN, but did not want to delay getting feedback or comments from the community.

>

> On the Naming Functions Agreement, we focused primarily on verifying

> the mapping exercise undertaken by ICANN to ensure the CWGâ€™s views

> and conditions have been incorporated.  Where the proposed draft

> appears to be lacking or inconsistent, we have noted with questions,

> comments, and in some instances direct revisions.

>

> Cheers,

> Josh

>

> JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER

> Partner

>

> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

> +1 650 565 7561 (PA direct)

> +1 213 896 6061 (LA direct)

> +1 323 708 2405 (Cell)

> jhofheimer at sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer at sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer at sidley.com%3cmailto:jhofheimer at sidley.com>>

> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com%3chttp:/www.sidley.com>>

> [Image removed by sender. SIDLEY]

>

>

>

>

>

>

****************************************************************************************************

> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is

> privileged or confidential.

> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and

> any attachments and notify us immediately.

>

>

****************************************************************************************************

>

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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/20160728/36649eef/attachment-0001.html>