Hi, I read your comments but am still working my through the bylaws changes comparng to the output from the CWg & CCWG. I did not know where statements like ' is unacceptable to NCSG' come from. At first reading I do not find myself nodding in agreement but do not want to get into it until I have had time read the whole set of bylaws. And to compare them to the language we submitted to see if there are deviations. One thing I am sure of is that I do not want us to reopen issues. If there is a direct contradiction to the language the CWG & CCWG submitted on the other hand, we should flag that. I think you should feel free to send these comments in as your comments without the references to what NCSG does or does not find acceptable. I will send in my comments as my comments, also without such phrases. I will be a few more days yet before I have had a chance to do the work. And if we want NCSG comments we should work through the NCSG-PC. avri On 04-Apr-16 14:21, 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 > > > > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus