[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement
Paul M Kane - CWG
paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk
Fri Sep 2 13:27:51 UTC 2016
Thanks Chuck (and apologies all once again for being late to the call)
I think we need to qualify 4.7 with regard to ccNSO members and non-members -
ICANN Bylaws respect the diversity of the ccTLD community and it is appropriate
that the Naming Functions Agreement does too so ... I'd propose:
"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
(b) the Country Code Names Supporting Organization ("ccNSO") in so far as they
apply to ccNSO members, and;
(c) 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, consult 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."
Best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>:
> Paul,
>
> In light of your concerns, are you okay with the following from the paragraph
> below: "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) . . . and the Country Code
> Names Supporting Organization ("ccNSO")"?
>
> " 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, consult 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."
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 5:40 PM
> To: Burr, Becky
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Mueller, Milton L; Lindeberg, Elise;
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement
>
> Just for clarity.... non-ccNSO members are not bound or impacted by ICANN
> Policies and this is respected in ICANN's own Bylaws. Also current ccNSO
> members who disagree with ICANN Policy can cease their membership and not be
> impacted:
> From ICANN's Bylaws.....
> Subject to clause 4(11), ICANN policies shall apply to ccNSO members by
> virtue of their membership to the extent, and only to the extent, that the
> policies (a) only address issues that are within scope of the ccNSO according
> to Article IX, Section 6 and Annex C; (b) have been developed through the
> ccPDP as described in Section 6 of this Article, and (c) have been
> recommended as such by the ccNSO to the Board, and (d) are adopted by the
> Board as policies, provided that such policies do not conflict with the law
> applicable to the ccTLD manager which shall, at all times, remain paramount.
> In addition, such policies shall apply to ICANN in its activities concerning
> ccTLDs.
> (ARTICLE IX, Section 4, Clause 10).
>
>
> Most non-ccNSO ccTLDs are content for the ccNSO to develop Polices that best
> serve their interest and provided that is respected (and there is no attempt
> to burden non-ccNSO ccTLDs) I learn from ccNSO members that they are content
> with the amended text proposed and adopted during the CWG call on the 1st
> September.
>
> (sorry for being late to the call and I hope this enables us to move
> forward)
>
> Best
>
> Paul
>
> Quoting "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>:
>
> > I will defer to Paul on that
> > 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 2:23 PM
> > To: Becky Burr
> > <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>,
> > "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>,
> > "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
> >
> > This looks fine to me Becky but I do have a totally different
> > question. Will the non-ccNSO member ccTLD registries have problem
> > with the inclusion of ccNSO developed policies? As you know, I am out
> > of my realm here but I am aware of the concerns Paul Kane has been
> > expressing and am curious if they are comfortable with this.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 1:52 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck; Mueller, Milton L; Lindeberg, Elise;
> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement
> >
> > 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@
> > 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@
> > 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 i
> > cann.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.
> >
> >
>
****************************************************************************************************
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list