<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Milton,<br>
Tx for taking the lead! I am certainly going to be reviewing, but
not for another day. What's the deadline and is OK to wait until
Wednesday for ideas and edits?<br>
Best,<br>
Kathy<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/4/2016 1:21 PM, Mueller, Milton L
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BY2PR07MB2408EE1AE7376952A60D28FEA19D0@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I want to send
these comments to the bylaws coordination group soon. There
have been no substantive comments so far but I know it’s
only 24 hours. Should I wait? Is anyone planning to comment?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">--MM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> NCSG-Discuss
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Mueller, Milton L<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, April 3, 2016 1:56 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> HR activists take note: A review of the
draft bylaws on the mission, core values and commitments<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">THE PROPOSED NEW BYLAWS ON MISSION, CORE
VALUES AND COMMITMENTS<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We received the draft bylaws this
morning. I have only had time to review Article 1, which is
important because it contains the mission, etc. I advance my
initial ideas and will get feedback here before posting to
the CCWG or bylaws-coord list.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In general, the Mission, Core Values and
Commitments bylaw language has been faithfully drafted to
reflect the concerns of the CCWG. There are three major
exceptions/problems. One is the section on renewals [Section
1.1, (d) (ii) F], the other two are Appendices G1 and G2. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Section 1.1 (d) (ii) F<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">"any renewals of agreements described in
subsections (A)-(D) pursuant to their terms and conditions
for renewal." This is an unacceptable deviation from the
agreement we had regarding grandfathering. The idea was that
_existing_ agreements would not be constrained by the new
mission limitations, but that anything in the future would
be subject to the new mission limitations. By extending
existing exceptions or ambiguities into the future via
renewals, we are making the new mission limitations
practically irrelevant. We need to push to change this.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">APPENDICES G1 and G2<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The items in Appendix G are carve-outs
from the mission limitations. That is, they expressly
authorize certain actions as authorized and thus not
challengable under the mission limitations. Therefore, we
need to be extremely careful about what is included there.
G1 refers to registrars, G2 to registries.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In G1, the bullet point on resolution of
disputes exempts any and all ICANN policies regarding the
USE of domain names. This broad exemption is unacceptable to
NCSG. Furthermore, its meaning is unclear. I do not know
what it means to say that dispute resolution is limited to
disputes "regarding the registration of domain names (as
opposed to the use of such domain names" and then to add
"but including where such policies take into account use of
the domain names)." The meaaning is unclear but we suspect
it will be construed as a blanket exemption for imposing on
registrars any policies regarding how domains are used,
which could include content. I note that Appendix G2
applicable to registries does not contain this language. We
want to get rid of it in G1 also.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The bullet point on cross-ownership
restrictions needs to make it clear that restrictions are
allowed only insofar as cross ownership affects the core
values of security, stability or competition. That is, I see
no basis for giving ICANN or the community a blanket right
to restrict cross-ownership for any reason they want; such
restrictions should only be used if they are a means to the
end of promoting or preserving the mission or other core
values, such as security, stability or competition. The best
option would be to delete this part of the G! and G2 and
make all cross-ownership policies subject to a mission
challenge. Cross ownership policies that demonstrably
advance the core vales of competition, security, stability,
etc. should have no trouble passing this test;
cross-ownership limitations that do not clearly meet this
test should be subject to challenge.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The bullet points on "reservation of
registered names" MUST be conditioned on respect for freedom
of expression rights. I have no trouble with leaving names
reservations in as a general exemption from mission
challenges, but only if that power, which obviously can be
abused or over-extended, is limited by concerns about
openness, freedom and innovation on the Internet. Along
these lines, we need to clarify the term "intellectual
property" to say "legally recognized intellectual property
rights."
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Other Substantive issues<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">------------------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Section 1.1 (a) (iii)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">"Coordinates the allocation and
assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol
numbers and Autonomous System numbers." I thought IANA and
IETF, not ICANN, do this. ICANN does it only insofar as it
is contracted to be the IFO. Does this belong here? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Section 1.2 (a) (vi) <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please delete the words "that enhance
ICANN’s effectiveness." I don’t see why these words are
needed. They seem to undercut or make conditional the clear
meaning of the first part of the sentence, which states that
ICANN is accountable to its community through the mechanisms
defined in the bylaws.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Section 1.2 (b) (vi)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">modify the sentence to read: "governments
and public authorities are responsible for public policy IN
THEIR OWN JURISDICTION.."
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Clarity, copy editing and redundancy
issues:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Section 1.1 (a) (i), first bullet point:
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">it says "facilitate the openness,
interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability". No
reason to have an "and/or" here, it should just be "and". We
want them all, and in other parts of the bylaws where
substantially the same list exists there is an "and."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Section 1.1 (a) (i), second bullet point:
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">"That are developed through a bottom-up
consensus-based multistakeholder process and designed to
ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s
unique names systems." This sentence should end at
"multistakeholder process." The addition of "and designed to
ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s
unique names systems" is redundant, it is already stated in
the first bullet point.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Section 1.2 (a) (i)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Needlessly awkward and confusing wording.
Why not just say “Administer the DNS in a way that preserves
and enhances its operational stability, reliability,
security, global interoperability, resilience and openness.”
?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dr. Milton L. Mueller<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Professor, School of Public Policy<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Georgia Institute of Technology<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>