[CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Sat Oct 10 00:52:54 UTC 2015

I'd like to repeat my question. We have to think through the specifics and
work out what we need to worry about, and what isn't a worry.

What say you? Do you think that the ccNSO should be able to run a PDP that
demands, say, ICANN give a lot of money to ccTLD projects, and not have
that subject to question?

I ask because getting specific about cases is the only way to rule things
in or out, and to unlock any possibility of arriving at consensus.

If we as a group of ccTLDs can't come to consensus, then there isn't going
to be an accountability proposal and isn't going to be a transition.

cheers
Jordan

best
Jordan

On 9 October 2015 at 22:52, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

> Hi Stephen, all:
>
> I've been very clear, most lately in a blog post today, that these issues
> need to be ironed out to consensus before a proposal goes anywhere.
>
> But that means answering tough questions - and the biggest tough question
> here is whether or not PDP processes needs some quarantine around them.
>
> For instance, I would support a restriction on the bylaws changes veto
> which said:
>
> "Where a bylaws change arises from an SO PDP, has no impact on ICANN
> generally, and the budget impact is less than $x per year, the bylaws veto
> isn't available."
>
> I support that because the intent of the accountability powers is *not* to
> interfere in PDPs. It is to exercise community control over ICANN and its
> overall operations.
>
> A PDP with limited financial impact could be usefully excluded to make
> that clear.
>
> But also, to be clear, aPDP by any SO that demanded a huge call on ICANN
> resources should in principle be able to be vetoed.
>
> In the end, our interest as cctld managers is to prevent ICANN affecting
> us and our operations. That's fair. What isn't fair is creating some
> fantastical right to claim on others' resources.
>
> What say you?
>
> Cheers
> Jordan
>
> On Friday, 9 October 2015, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake at nic.as> wrote:
>
>> Jordan,
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think the GNSO would like to be in a position where the ccNSO
>> could muster additional SO/AC support to kill off a PDP that they worked
>> diligently on and got Board buy in for.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think the ccNSO would not like this either.
>>
>>
>>
>> So to me it's not a "hypothetical" but rather, how does the CCWG proposal
>> manage this, because at the end of the day, we need buy-in from the SO/AC
>> community for the CCWG proposal to go forward, and if there is not an
>> accommodation with respect to SO/Board approved PDPs standing as ICANN
>> policy, not subject to being shot down by other SO/AC members, how do you
>> realistically expect the SOs to provide consensus for the CCWG proposal put
>> forward to the Board, and subsequently, NITA?
>>
>>
>>
>> Just asking…
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> /Stephen
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz]
>> *Sent:* Friday, October 09, 2015 4:52 AM
>> *To:* sdeerhake at nic.as
>> *Cc:* Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler at auda.org.au>;
>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org; Lisse Eberhard <
>> directors at omadhina.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> sdeerhake at gdns.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
>> 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>
>> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org; Lisse Eberhard <
>> 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]
>> *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>
>> 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>
>> 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
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
> Chief Executive, InternetNZ
>
> +64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>
> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
>
>

-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ*

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter
Web: www.internetnz.nz

*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151010/b81da2d2/attachment.html>