[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement

[Burr, Becky]

How about the following:

Section 4.7 Responsibility and Respect for Stakeholders. Contractor shall apply the policies for the Root Zone Management component of the IANA Naming Function that have been defined, or after the date of this Agreement are further defined, by (a) the Generic Names Supporting Organization (“GNSO”) and the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (“ccNSO”), and (b) RFC 1591: /Domain Name System Structure and Delegation/ (“RFC 1591”) as interpreted by the Framework of Interpretation of Current Policies and Guidelines Pertaining to the Delegation and Redelegation of Country-Code Top Level Domain Names, dated October 2014 (“FOI”).  In addition to these policies, Contractor shall, where applicable, apply the 2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and Guidelines for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains (“GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles”). Contractor shall publish documentation pertaining to the implementation of these policies and principles on the IANA Website.


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: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>
Date: Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 1:49 PM
To: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, "Lindeberg, Elise" <elise.lindeberg at Nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg at Nkom.no>>, "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] [client com] Naming Function Agreement

It definitely should not be listed as a policy.  Any reference to them would have to avoid any implication that they are policy.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 11:14 AM
To: Burr, Becky; Lindeberg, Elise; CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement

It is important. I think the best solution would be to remove the GAC principles from the list of applicable policies, since it is not an ICANN policy

Dr. Milton L Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__spp.gatech.edu_&d=DQMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=vSY4qEFfQeM3_MOt9BqsxTQdh1NcsT6-5RqZdXQjReQ&s=UGPIljPlrovfxu2PtWiIFwEdA6lWGvBi9GEiDFAeFaM&e=>
Georgia Institute of Technology
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__internetgovernance.org_&d=DQMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=vSY4qEFfQeM3_MOt9BqsxTQdh1NcsT6-5RqZdXQjReQ&s=OfTBX8dRLVEfPtfPtAeajH_Q7Xyncu8iKVRZl3vBx44&e=>



From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 11:08 AM
To: Lindeberg, Elise <elise.lindeberg at Nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg at Nkom.no>>; Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>; trang.nguyen at icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen at icann.org>; CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement


I want to step back and explain why this change was offered and why it is important.  There is a fundamental problem with the reference to the GAC Principles in Section 4.7 of the Naming Functions Agreement.  Section 4.7 lists the “policies” that IANA is required to apply.  Simply put, the GAC Principles are important GAC Advice – but they are not ICANN policy.  They have never been considered by any of the policy development bodies authorized in the ICANN Bylaws, and they have not been adopted by the ICANN Board.  The ccTLD participants who offered the revised wording attempted to address the problem adding a clear link back to the GAC’s own language in Section 1.3.  Alternatively, you could simply remove the GAC Principles from the list of applicable “policies.”

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: <Lindeberg>, Elise <elise.lindeberg at Nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg at Nkom.no>>
Date: Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 9:33 AM
To: "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>, "trang.nguyen at icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen at icann.org>" <trang.nguyen at icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen at icann.org>>, "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] [client com] Naming Function Agreement

+1, Jorge

Elise

Fra:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] På vegne av Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
Sendt: 1. september 2016 09:21
Til: trang.nguyen at icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen at icann.org>; CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement

Thanks for this info.

May we be informed why the solution offered to the discussion on 4.7. (how to best refer to the 2005 GAC Principles) apparently ignores the comments made by several members and participants of this group, while it takes up the suggestions made by other participants?

Thanks and regards

Jorge

Von:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Trang Nguyen
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. September 2016 05:49
An: CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
Betreff: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] Naming Function Agreement

All,

Forwarding email from Sidley regarding the the Naming Function Agreement for your review.

Best,

Trang

From: <cwg-client-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer at sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer at sidley.com>>
Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:32 PM
To: Client <cwg-client at icann.org<mailto:cwg-client at icann.org>>, "jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>" <jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>, 'Lise Fuhr' <lise.fuhr at difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr at difo.dk>>
Subject: [client com] Naming Function Agreement

Dear Client Committee,

Attached please find a revised draft of the Naming Function Agreement, marked against the version ICANN put out for public comment.  This draft reflects the negotiation of various items between ICANN and Sidley, as well as ICANN’s response to the comments provided previously by Paul Kane, Becky Burr and other CWG participants.  ICANN has prepared an chart reflecting a number of items for which it is seeking confirmation from the CWG Client Committee that the particular item may be considered closed out.  Although the chart appears lengthy, that is merely because it contains the historical context of discussion for each item.   ICANN plans to review these items on the call tomorrow, and for our part, Sidley has no further edits to request if the CWG is satisfied with ICANN’s proposed handling of the matters on the chart.

Thank you,
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>
www.sidley.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sidley.com&d=DQMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=FPQR1Kinldf2JW141QOgAICaJbdCiJtDYLdhqqPGM2A&s=5BeRy1BHtwrvC2TIKe2dYjVBBZajZZqkESlWtHuAYBU&e=>
[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.

****************************************************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160901/70515890/attachment-0001.html>