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