[CCWG-Accountability] [ccTLDcommunity] Alternative proposal to the CWG transition plan

Fri Dec 19 11:00:08 UTC 2014

Dear All,
Thanks for thoughtful suggestion
This should be table among other suggestions and not the only one .
Some criteria ,I understands ,is an example, only and subject to further
review.
For instance criteria to trigger the Voting is mentioned to be 15% .Usually
such issues are dealt with 25% as minimum.
Many elements in this message are very helpful and positive.
However, I have noted that ,efforts are made to create and suggest other
terms such as Appeal or the like and NOT DIRECTLY OVERSIGHT MECHANISM.
WE NEED AS I MENTIONED TO SEPARATE POLICY MAKING ENTITY FROM POLICY
IMPLEMENTING ENTITY AND THE POLICY ITSELF
Please kindly understand the serious concerns that exist and we should not
try to divert from the essential point  in creating other sub -emntity or
alternatives
Regards
Kavouss

2014-12-19 7:42 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:
>
> Just as info, i think this contribution may need to be submitted at the
> url below(if not already done) as that is where comments will be formerly
> received:
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-naming-transition-2014-12-01-en
>
> Regards
> Member of the CWG-Stewardship
>
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the share Dr Lisse
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na> wrote:
>>>
>>> Please find enclosed a draft proposal from auDA forwarded with
>>> permission.
>>>
>>> greetings, el
>>>
>>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
>>>
>>> > On Dec 19, 2014, at 07:21, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Yes el, with pleasure
>>> >
>>> > Chris Disspain
>>> > CEO - auDA
>>> >
>>> >> On 19 Dec 2014, at 16:20, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Chris,
>>> >>
>>> >> can I forward to CCWG-Accountability?
>>> >>
>>> >> el
>>> >>
>>> >> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
>>> >>
>>> >>> On Dec 19, 2014, at 04:58, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> All,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Over the next couple of days auDA will be finalising its comments on
>>> the CWG proposal. As part of those we will be putting forward an
>>> alternative proposal. That proposal is below and also attached as a word
>>> document. I would welcome and very much appreciate input and feedback from
>>> ccTLD colleagues on our draft alternative. Like the CWG one, there is more
>>> work to do on it and detail to be filled in but I think it stands as a
>>> viable way forward that might, as a whole, be more palatable to some ccTLDs
>>> than the CWG proposal. Of course I could be wrong. I’ve been wrong before,
>>> once or twice.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> IMPORTANT - As you know, I’m on the ICANN Board. The below proposal
>>> and the comments auDA will make on the CWG proposal come from auDA. The
>>> proposal has nothing to do with the ICANN Board and has not been discussed
>>> with the ICANN Board.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Cheers,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer
>>> >>> .au Domain Administration Ltd
>>> >>> T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112
>>> >>> E: ceo at auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au
>>> >>> auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> auDA’s Alternative Proposal to CWG Transition Plan
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Assumptions:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 1. In a limited number of circumstances (such as 'gross
>>> incompetence' or ‘material breach’) there should be an option for the IANA
>>> function to be transferred from ICANN to another operator - The Nuclear
>>> Option.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 2. There should be an enhancing of the current functional separation
>>> of the IANA function from the rest of ICANN - Functional Separation.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 3. There should be a TLD registry operator centric standing
>>> committee to liaise with and oversee the IANA functions operator on
>>> administrative and service level functions - The Customer Standing
>>> Committee.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 4. There should be an independent, binding arbitration mechanism to
>>> handle certain disputes - Appeals.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 5. There should be a separate review body to review any ccTLD
>>> revocation and delegation (formally referred to as re-delegation) - The
>>> ccTLD Review Body
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Note - there is a further assumption that the ICANN Accountability
>>> working group will deal with ICANN wide accountability recommendations (for
>>> example a Board spill mechanism) and that such matters are best dealt with
>>> there. It is clear that any fully formed transition proposal from the CWG
>>> has to be inextricably linked to the work of that Accountability WG and
>>> therefore the timing of the work of the groups needs to become aligned.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Proposal:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 1. The Nuclear Option - Where the IANA functions operator is grossly
>>> negligent or incompetent or in material breach of its obligations under
>>> agreed service level commitments or performance indicators, it needs to be
>>> possible for the IANA function to be moved to a new operator.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> This could be achieved by the creation of a ‘Golden Bylaw’, similar
>>> to the corporate concept of a golden share (
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_share). The Golden Bylaw would give
>>> the TLD registry operators the right, in certain circumstances, to require
>>> ICANN to put the IANA function out to re-bid. The Golden Bylaw would set
>>> out at least:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> a) the requirements to trigger the re-bid process - FOR EXAMPLE a
>>> vote of over 75% of ccTLD registry operators and 75% of gTLD registry
>>> operators
>>> >>>
>>> >>> b) what would need to happen to trigger the TLD registry operator’s
>>> vote - FOR EXAMPLE a petition by more than 15% of TLD registry operators
>>> >>>
>>> >>> c) the composition of a Re-Bid Committee that would oversee the vote
>>> and the subsequent re-bid and decide who the successful bidder was. The
>>> Re-Bid Committee could, FOR EXAMPLE, comprise of 20 registry operators
>>> (split between ccTLDs and gTLDS) plus a representative from each of the
>>> GAC, ALAC, SSAC and RSSAC
>>> >>>
>>> >>> d) the basis upon which the Golden Bylaw itself could be changed -
>>> FOR EXAMPLE only by a vote of over 75% of ccTLD registry operators and 75%
>>> of gTLD registry operators
>>> >>>
>>> >>> e) the other aspects of this proposal set out below.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 2. Functional Separation - The current levels of functional
>>> separation of the IANA function from the rest of ICANN can be enhanced as
>>> part of the transition in a number of ways including:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> a) the IANA department having its own discrete budget
>>> >>>
>>> >>> b) the IANA department having its own legal advisors and independent
>>> legal advice.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 3. Customer Standing Committee - This committee would provide the
>>> day-to-day liaison between the IANA functions operator and the TLD registry
>>> operators. It could be made up of an equal number of ccTLD and gTLD
>>> registry operators plus a representative from each of the GAC, ALAC, SSAC
>>> and RSSAC. It would perform, at least, the following tasks:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> a) work with the IANA functions operator to agree service levels and
>>> performance indicators
>>> >>>
>>> >>> b) review and re-negotiate the service levels and performance
>>> indicators at agreed intervals
>>> >>>
>>> >>> c) receive reports on and monitor the IANA functions operator’s
>>> performance with respect to the service levels and the performance
>>> indicators
>>> >>>
>>> >>> d) conduct a regular IANA functions operator budget review.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 4. Appeals - To deal with disputes that arise in respect to matters
>>> covered by 3 above there should be a binding arbitration mechanism
>>> utilising the services of an independent arbitration organisation.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 5. The ccTLD Review Body - The ccTLD community needs to work to come
>>> to consensus on the review body contemplated by the Framework of
>>> Interpretation WG. Whilst it may not be essential that this work is done by
>>> the time of the transition, it is essential that the appeals mechanism set
>>> out in 4 above is clearly understood to not be that ccTLD Review Body.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> ccTLDcommunity mailing list
>>> >>> ccTLDcommunity at cctld-managers.org
>>> >>> http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
>>> >>>
>>> >>> To unsubscribe please send a blank email to
>>> ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe at lists.cctld-managers.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
>> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt
>> email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>>
>> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt
> email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20141219/bf1b9aa2/attachment.html>