[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement
Gomes, Chuck
cgomes at verisign.com
Wed Sep 7 20:36:57 UTC 2016
Unless I am missing something, this change seems fine to me.
Chuck
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 7, 2016, at 4:20 PM, Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk> wrote:
>
> 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@ http://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@ http://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]
>>>>>> P� 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 http://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>
> http://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