[CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Fri Oct 9 07:42:15 UTC 2015

Thanks Jordan,

My questions were intentionally provocative in order to make clear my point 
about the need for ccTLD engagement.

After all, I was responding to Eberhard’s question directly.

I acknowledge that consensus models are under consideration. But the voting 
model has not been discounted.

As long as it is “on the table”, it is valid for me to use it as an example 
of an issue ccTLDs should be aware of.

With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent 
question):

Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of 
serious work, makes final recommendations.

This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO.

However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome involves a 
proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential objection by other parts 
of the community.

This is not an inconceivable scenario.

It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw changes are 
clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect). I see the potential 
that the current CCWG proposal would allow for intervention by other SOs and 
ACs.

This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop and the 
independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point).

The mechanisms of how it would be blocked, the distribution of voting rights 
and the likelihood of it occurring do not much matter in this case.

The point is that there is the potential for a ccNSO PDP to be vetoed by 
others.

The only alternative is to excise policy development processes from the 
currently-proposed accountability model, but would that defeat the purpose 
of the whole exercise?

This is just one example of the many strings that need to be brought 
together and addressed before we all agree on a new model for accountability 
for a post-NTIA ICANN.

Paul

From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz]
Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 5:48 PM
To: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler at auda.org.au>
Cc: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na>; Lisse Eberhard 
<directors at omadhina.net>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Hi all,

A comment or two re Paul's note below;

On Friday, 9 October 2015, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler at auda.org.au 
<mailto:paul.szyndler at auda.org.au> > wrote:

Eberhard,

I have long appreciated your vehement and unflinching commitment to the
independence and autonomy of ccTLDs.
However, as cc managers, we constantly face the challenge of balancing this
independence against the need for engagement with the broader stakeholder
community.

I believe that the CCWG is one process we need to engage in.
As cc managers, are we happy for "the rest" of the community to arrive at a
solution for the future stewardship of ICANN (which includes a place for the
ccNSO) without contributing to that process?

In whatever membership model the community may arrive at, we ultimately get
down to the unsavoury detail of votes and voting mechanisms.
Are you happy with a 5 of 29 voting structure?

Other models under discussion would see a consensus model rather than votes.

Are you supportive of a model that has the potential to "veto" a ccPDP?

This one is mystifying, since nobody has at any point suggested any 
possibility of this.

What is your novel interpretation of the ccwg's proposal that leads you to 
this curious conclusion? If you are going to assert the conclusion, I think 
it would be helpful to share the basis for it - mainly so that we can fix it 
so such a problem does not occur.

Irrespective of whether you answer "yes", "no" or "I don’t care", I believe
that these issues are of sufficient significance to warrant our collective
attention.

At no point have I seen anything in the Stewardship or Accountability
processes that threatens the existing internal roles or responsibilities of
ccTLD managers.
However, I believe we need to be engaged in the broader ecosystem because
these potential changes will have an effect on how each of us can influence
our environment in the future.

Agree.

Jordan

Perhaps I could turn your question back to you.
I note that you have devoted considerable time, effort and intellectual
capacity to the CCWG.
Assuming that the CCWG report doesn’t affect ccTLDs directly, what is it
about this process that has warranted your dedicated engagement?

Regards,

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:el at lisse.na <javascript:;> ]
Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 3:20 PM
To: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler at auda.org.au <javascript:;> >
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org <javascript:;> ; Lisse Eberhard
<directors at omadhina.NET <mailto:directors at omadhina.NET> >
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Paul,

what is in the CCWG report that affects ccTLDs, directly?

el

--
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On 9 Oct 2015, at 03:08, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler at auda.org.au 
> <javascript:;> > wrote:
>
> Thank you for this Mathieu,
>
> Although this is an appropriately short and high-level document, it
> still conveys a very strong message.
> Not only is the work of the CWG and CCWG supported, but the process
> that was undertaken is justified and endorsed at some length.
>
> It is interesting that this consensus has been reached as, in my
> observation, few ccTLD colleagues (with notable exceptions including
> yourself,  Roelof, Jordan etc) have been very actively involved in the
> ongoing work.
> I can only imagine that the views of many Governments are also only in
> their nascent stage. This is certainly the case with mine.
>
> So it is important that we fully understand the CENTR / HLIG position
> because it will carry considerable weight in the cc and GAC
> communities, where many may not have followed the work closely nor
> taken a definitive position.
> Is this core group of European stakeholders unconditionally endorsing
> the CWG, CCWG and their expected outputs?
> Or rather, is the position an endorsement of what has been done so far
> (and how it has been done), with a more open-ended position on what
> may happen over the coming months?
>
> Regards,
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Szyndler | General Manager, International and Government Affairs
> .au Domain Administration Limited
> T: +61 2 6292 5034 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 | M: +61 402 250 389
> E: paul.szyndler at auda.org.au <javascript:;> 
> <mailto:paul.szyndler at auda.org.au <javascript:;> >  | W:
> www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au>  <http://www.auda.org.au/>
> Twitter: @auda <http://twitter.com/auda>  | Blog:
> www.auda.org.au/blog/ <http://www.auda.org.au/blog/> 
> <http://www.auda.org.au/blog/>
>
>
> auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator
>
> Important Notice
>
> This email may contain information which is confidential and/or
> subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named
> addressee only.
> If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or
> copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by
> mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <javascript:;>
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <javascript:;> ] 
> On Behalf Of
> Mathieu Weill
> Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 1:39 AM
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org <javascript:;>
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Along with some European members and participants of our group, I am
> attending the CENTR meeting in Brussels. This morning was a joint
> session with the European High Level Internet Governance group (made
> of european GAC representives), and it discussed the IANA Stewardship
> transition.
>
> The outcome of this meeting is summarized in the statement that is now
> online :
> https://t.co/EuolALNkgV
>
> You can also find my update regarding our work on our wiki (feel free
> to
> re-use) :
> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CENTR+Accountability
> +Upd
> ate
>
>
> As part of the discussion, I have noted a suggestion by Roelof that we
> prepare a short, understandable paper to summarize the state of play,
> and what remains to be done.
>
> Best,
>
> --
> *****************************
> Mathieu WEILL
> AFNIC - directeur général
> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr <javascript:;>
> Twitter : @mathieuweill
> *****************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:;>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:;>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:;>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- 
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151009/79a3993b/attachment.html>