[CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft

[Lindeberg, Elise]

Kind regards

Elise

Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] På vegne av Gomes, Chuck
Sendt: 5. november 2014 23:40
Til: Milton L Mueller; 'Marika Konings'; 'cwg-stewardship at icann.org'
Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft

Thanks for reviewing the document Milton.  I will ask you to do what I asked all CWG participants to do earlier today:  Please provide any edits you want to suggest in a redlined version of the Proposal and the subgroup and entire CWG will consider them.

Chuck

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]<mailto:[mailto:mueller at syr.edu]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 4:43 PM
To: 'Marika Konings'; Gomes, Chuck; 'cwg-stewardship at icann.org'
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 2A Proposal ­ 3 November 2014 Draft

Hello,
Have looked over this table. Perhaps this is an intermediate-level document that is designed to prepare the response to II.A, and if so some of my comments may not apply. But if this is intended to be a draft response for II.A I am concerned about the extent to which it actually conforms to the ICG's RFP.

Section 2A of the RFP is entitled "Policy sources" and asks for "the specific source(s) of policy that must be followed by the IANA functions operator in its conduct of the services or activities described [in Section 1] above.

So someone has re-labeled the response as "Policy, Principles and Guidelines" and the comment says it was "changed here because some of the information provided is not actually policy but it relevant to policy and should therefore be included."

I do not think I agree with this approach, at least not on first review. Organizations responding to an RFP typically don't change the RFP. Let's not rewrite the RFP. The ICG is asking for the sources of policy or policy development. IF the GAC "principles and guidelines" or the CCNSO documents establish criteria that "must be followed by the IANA functions operator" then include it; if they are not guiding factors but merely suggestions that may or may not be followed in any particular instance, we don't include them.

But Milton,  - You have to have the approach that principles generally applies

If you are concerned about blurry lines between what is policy and what is only an important factor shaping policy, GAC's Advisory role in policy development might more properly be dealt with in a "description of how policy is developed" (bullet point 2 in the RFP) than by citing particular documents GAC has produced. It is really GAC's role as defined in the ICANN bylaws, and not any specific document of GAC, that are most relevant here.

The GAC and the community has for a long time talked about factoring the GAC advice early into PDP`s in other constituencies like GNSO and ccNSO (ref. ATRT ). Now, there is no set mechanism for this in the bylaws defining how to do this. CWG doesn't have the mandate to "redesign" how the ICANN and all the processes should function. This is discussions ongoing in general in community. I think it's more constructive to consider  this document as an illustration of the more overall organic proses that comes before something is given to IANA to execute.


I agree with Marika's comment that the information about GNSO policy development process should be current, there is no need to reference obsolete versions.

I note that this document does not deal with bullet point 3 (how disputes about policy are resolved) - is that an oversight or just that we are not there yet? Obviously we would need to reference the Independent Review Process, the Reconsideration Request and the Ombudsman.

I also note that this document does not map the policy sources to the specific IANA functions that are affected. The RFP requires us to do that.

Finally, it seems strange to me to include the IANA contract in this list. In one very important sense, of course it is a key source of policy for the performance of the IANA functions. The problem is that the IANA contract does not come from the GNSO, the CCNSO, the GAC, the ALAC or any other part or grouping of the names community. It comes from the U.S. government. So while I understand why you put it in there, I do not think it quite belongs. The RFP as I understand it is asking for the ways in which the DNS community sets policy for the IANA.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141106/36079262/attachment.html>