[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement
Christopher Disspain
chris at disspain.id.au
Wed Sep 7 19:49:23 UTC 2016
Hi Paul,
What are the actual amendments you are suggesting, please?
Chris
> On 7 Sep 2016, at 19:53, Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On reflection and following consultation with colleagues I'd like to make a few
> small amendments to my earlier statement so 4.7 IMHO should read:
>
>
> "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”), as appropriate
> under ICANN’s Bylaws and;
> (b) the Country Code Names Supporting Organization ("ccNSO”), as
> appropriate under ICANN’s Bylaws 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."
>
> I hope members of the CWG will find this minor correction acceptable and
> suitable for adoption tomorrow.
>
> Best
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> correct my earlier
>
> Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>:
>
>> I flagged this because I suspected there might be a concern and I didn't want
>> there to be any late surprises that might cause unnecessary delays. At the
>> same time, let me be clear that this is not my issue so I look forward to
>> seeing the resolution.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk]
>> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 9:28 AM
>> To: Gomes, Chuck
>> Cc: Burr, Becky; Mueller, Milton L; Lindeberg, Elise;
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement
>>
>> 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-bounce
>>>> s@ 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-bounce
>>>> s@ 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
>>>> @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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> ****************************************************************************************************
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list