Let me reply to Avri, Ed and Niels in the same message.

Niels: good to know the HR language seems ok to you. Does Tatiana agree with you? Do you have any concerns about the mission limitation exemptions I identified?

Avri: The language about what was acceptable to NCSG was suggested, and comments sent to the list to see if people agreed. 

Avri and Ed: I am focused exclusively on the mission limitations language in Article 1. To provide feedback on that, you do not need to read every little detail in the 200+ page bylaws, e.g., how the escalation process works or how a SCWG is formed. Are you able to give me a sense of whether the mission has been limited properly or whether Appendix G exemptions are too broad?

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Niels ten Oever [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2016 1:57 PM
> To: Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]>; NCSG-
> [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: HR activists take note: A review of the draft bylaws on the
> mission, core values and commitments
> 
> Hi Milton,
> 
> Am at IETF meeting so have a bit of limited time, so I focused on the HR work.
> I don't see any changes between the HR langugage suggested in CCWG
> report and the proposed bylaw language. So, no comments from me.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Niels
> 
> On 04/04/2016 07:21 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> > 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?
> >
> > --MM
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
> Behalf
> > Of *Mueller, Milton L
> > *Sent:* Sunday, April 3, 2016 1:56 PM
> > *To:* [log in to unmask]
> > *Subject:* HR activists take note: A review of the draft bylaws on the
> > mission, core values and commitments
> >
> >
> >
> > THE PROPOSED NEW BYLAWS ON MISSION, CORE VALUES AND
> COMMITMENTS
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > Section 1.1 (d) (ii) F
> >
> >
> >
> > "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.
> >
> >
> >
> > APPENDICES G1 and G2
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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."
> >
> >
> >
> > Other Substantive issues
> >
> > ------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > Section 1.1 (a) (iii)
> >
> > "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?
> >
> >
> >
> > Section 1.2 (a) (vi)
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > Section 1.2 (b) (vi)
> >
> > modify the sentence to read: "governments and public authorities are
> > responsible for public policy IN THEIR OWN JURISDICTION.."
> >
> >
> >
> > Clarity, copy editing and redundancy issues:
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> >
> > Section 1.1 (a) (i), first bullet point:
> >
> > 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."
> >
> >
> >
> > Section 1.1 (a) (i), second bullet point:
> >
> > "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.
> >
> >
> >
> > Section 1.2 (a) (i)
> >
> > 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." ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Dr. Milton L. Mueller
> >
> > Professor, School of Public Policy
> >
> > Georgia Institute of Technology
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
> 
> Article 19
> www.article19.org
> 
> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>                    678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9