[CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Mon Oct 12 11:54:44 UTC 2015

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?

Thanks for re-stating your question Jordan. I have pasted from a number of 
your previous messages.

Yes, I think that the ccNSO should be able to run and conclude a PDP that 
“demands” whatever the cc community requires of ICANN. The same goes for the 
GNSO.

My main issue is that I don’t agree with your categorisation that a PDP it 
is not “subject to question”.

The current process for policy development is a sound model.

It was a hard-won, negotiated model that necessarily involves input from the 
rest of the community.

A ccPDP includes commentary periods that allow the GNSO, At Large, 
governments and everyone else to contribute.

It is also subject to clearance via the ICANN Board.

We have a mechanism / system / process in place and the current 
Accountability work should not subvert it. It sounds awfully like a solution 
in search of a problem.

"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."

This is very dangerous territory.

The question of whether an SO PDP “has no impact on ICANN generally” is 
subjective and open to all sorts of debate.

Attempting to define what figure “$x per year” is even trickier. It will 
open up all sorts of arguments regarding community contribution, budget etc. 
Not a space the CCWG needs to get in to.

Even with the very best intentions, if we are not careful, we risk 
undermining everything we have achieved so far as a community

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.

I don’t agree that our interest as cc managers is to prevent ICANN affecting 
us. That is a very protectionist position that I had hope we have moved 
beyond.

Our interest is developing the most stable, secure and reliable model that 
we can all support, and bringing in to question the mechanisms we currently 
have in place is counter-productive (see my comments above)

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.

At the risk of stating the obvious, at this important juncture, we need to 
steer clear of such dramatic categorisations. If we cant come to consensus, 
we all need to look critically at the options before us, negotiate further, 
and try to arrive at a model that works

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:  <mailto:paul.szyndler at auda.org.au> paul.szyndler at auda.org.au | W: 
www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/>
Twitter:  <http://twitter.com/auda> @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.

From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 10 October 2015 11:53 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

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 
<mailto: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 
<mailto: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 <mailto:sdeerhake at nic.as>
Cc: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler at auda.org.au 
<mailto:paul.szyndler at auda.org.au> >; 
accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> ; Lisse Eberhard 
<directors at omadhina.net <mailto: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 
<mailto: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 <tel:%2B1%20212%20334%203660>

+1 212 656 1983 <tel:%2B1%20212%20656%201983>

sdeerhake at nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake at nic.as>

sdeerhake at gdns.net <mailto:sdeerhake at gdns.net>

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
<mailto: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 
<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz> >
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> ; Lisse Eberhard 
<directors at omadhina.net <mailto: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 
<mailto:paul.szyndler at auda.org.au> >
Cc: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na <mailto:el at lisse.na> >; Lisse Eberhard 
<directors at omadhina.net <mailto:directors at omadhina.net> >; 
accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
<mailto: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]
Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 3:20 PM
To: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler at auda.org.au 
<mailto:paul.szyndler at auda.org.au> >
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> ; 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 
> <mailto: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 <tel:%2B61%202%206292%205034>  | F: +61 3 8341 4112 
> <tel:%2B61%203%208341%204112>  | M: +61 402 250 389 
> <tel:%2B61%20402%20250%20389>
> E: paul.szyndler at auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler at auda.org.au> 
> <mailto:paul.szyndler at auda.org.au>  | 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 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto: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 <tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006>
> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
> Twitter : @mathieuweill
> *****************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto: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 
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- 
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649>  | jordan at internetnz.net.nz 
<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

-- 
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649>  | jordan at internetnz.net.nz 
<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

-- 
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649>  | jordan at internetnz.net.nz 
<mailto: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:  <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter

Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://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/20151012/e17b80fa/attachment.html>