[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement
Paul M Kane - CWG
paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk
Wed Sep 7 20:19:35 UTC 2016
as appropriate under ICANN’s Bylaws and
Quoting Christopher Disspain <chris at disspain.id.au>:
> 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