[registrars] [Fwd: Re: Clarification of scope of SSAC025 recommendations]

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

Please see the attached exchange of notes between myself and the SSAC's 
Chair and Fellow.
This goes to the point Margie appears unwilling to acknowledge.

In my reply to Dave Piscitello I pointed out that the operators of .MIL 
and .MY (the Pentagon and Burma, respectively), may not enter into an 
agreement with ICANN in the forseeable future, which is the point Tim 
notes, that the ccNSO has no authority to make consensus policy for ccTLDs.
Eric

--- Begin Message ---

• To: Steve Crocker <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: Re: Clarification of scope of SSAC025 recommendations
• From: Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 06:16:09 -0800
• Accept-language: en-US
• Acceptlanguage: en-US
• In-reply-to: <D603229E-23C9-4E03-851D-552593F1B05B@shinkuro.com>
• Thread-index: AciAS53bxp9hpvi4TYu6pfK1vT6WWAAEiwvR
• Thread-topic: Clarification of scope of SSAC025 recommendations

Eric and Steve,

Thanks, Eric for a "good catch". I think it's correct to change GTLD to TLD; I also think it's best to simply say "future agreements" without qualifying whether such agreements are operational, contractual, or for accreditation. If you concur, I'll make these changes, update the version to 1.0, change the date to Mar 2008 and ask ICANN webmaster to substitute this for the current online version.

Thank you again,

Dave


On 3/7/08 7:05 AM, "Steve Crocker" <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Eric,

Thanks.  As Dave just replied, we'll look into this.

Steve

On Mar 5, 2008, at 12:15 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> Steve,
>
> I think an editorial nit in the last para of ssac025 may be the
> cause of a misunderstanding.
>
> The language I think is factually in error is the first sentence of
> the Recommendations on the final page. There is a "G" prefixing the
> string "TLD", which may lead some to think that if there is a scope
> for any remedial policy, that the scope of such a policy is within
> the GNSO's policy making council.
>
> A related nit may be the use of the term "accreditation" to qualify
> "agreements" in the final line of the same paragraph. When read
> with the encouragement by SSAC of "ICANN, registries and
> registrars", and the current use of "contractual" and "non-
> contractual" labels to distinguish between kinds of parties, this
> line too suggests that if there are remedial policies, they too are
> properly scoped within the GNSO's policy making council.
>
> I suggest removing the "G" prefix in the first line of the
> Recommendations section, unless of course, fast flux and double
> flux are for reasons unknown to me, more difficult to exploit using
> compromised assets in, or serving, the .gov, .mil, or any iso3166
> code-point associated registry namespaces.
>
> While IANAL, substituting "operational" for "accreditation" may
> improve the final sentence by placing the emphasis on best
> practices and operational art, rather than the existence of a civil
> contract.
>
> Eric

--- End Message ---