[CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Jordan Carter jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Fri Oct 9 08:51:53 UTC 2015


Important point to think through, thank you for raising it!

We must be clear though:  what motivation would there be for the entirety
of the rest of the community to organise such a veto?

Because these are not casual powers.

Such a situation would surely only emerge if:

A) the bylaws change was very resource intensive, and

B) the ccnso had failed to engage the rest of the community in the logic of
its case.


In the case of both of these together, why should the rest of the community
not be able to say 'go away and think again'?

And in all other cases, the threshold to do a veto wouldn't be met.


The alternative would be to exempt SO PDPs from these rules. But why should
that be the case if resources were affected?

Jordan

On Friday, 9 October 2015, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake at nic.as> wrote:

> Greetings Paul,
>
>
>
> With respect to my earlier post, you write:
>
>
>
> [---START---]
>
> 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).
>
> [---END--]
>
>
>
> Thank you Paul for acknowledging that under the current proposal it is
> possible for a ccNSO PDP, adopted by the Board, to be later overturned by
> the Community at large.
>
>
>
> Can I ask the CCWG members how they might think this is an acceptable
> situation for the ccNSO, and can I also ask, what do the CCWG members might
> have in mind to remedy this?  I see a difficult road ahead for ccNSO
> consensus for the CCWG proposal as it currently stands.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Stephen Deerhake
>
> AS Domain Registry
>
> GDNS LLC
>
> +1 212 334 3660
>
> +1 212 656 1983
>
> sdeerhake at nic.as <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sdeerhake at nic.as');>
>
> sdeerhake at gdns.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sdeerhake at gdns.net');>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>]
> *On Behalf Of *Paul Szyndler
> *Sent:* Friday, October 09, 2015 3:42 AM
> *To:* Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan at internetnz.net.nz');>>
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community at icann.org');>;
> Lisse Eberhard <directors at omadhina.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','directors at omadhina.net');>>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels
>
>
>
> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan at internetnz.net.nz');>]
> *Sent:* Friday, 9 October 2015 5:48 PM
> *To:* Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler at auda.org.au
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','paul.szyndler at auda.org.au');>>
> *Cc:* Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','el at lisse.na');>>; Lisse Eberhard <
> directors at omadhina.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','directors at omadhina.net');>>;
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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]
> Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 3:20 PM
> To: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler at auda.org.au>
> Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org; Lisse Eberhard
> <directors at omadhina.NET
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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>
> 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 <mailto:paul.szyndler at auda.org.au>  | W:
> > 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/>
> >
> >
> > 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
> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
> > Mathieu Weill
> > Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 1:39 AM
> > To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> > 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
> > Twitter : @mathieuweill
> > *****************************
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
> Chief Executive, InternetNZ
>
> +64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan at internetnz.net.nz');>
>
> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
>


-- 
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | 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/d8c7ea04/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list