[CWG-Stewardship] The Reverse Hybrid Model

[Seun Ojedeji]

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> Your points Andrew seem useful to me as well as the points made by others
> regarding this model.  Like several have said, I am not in favor of
> reopening closed issues but I do wonder if there are some elements of the
> this new model that could  be used to improve our solution.


+1 and will be good if that ponder can come after we have a clear direction
on the 2 proposals we currently have under review


>   But before the CWG spends any more time on this model, I would at least
> like to get a high level response from Sidley as to whether they think
> there may be some ideas in the model that could be useful.
>

I am of a personal opinion that we don't load-up/increase the working hours
of Sidley with this for now....we have set some directions for them already
and they are working on it. Perhaps when we have exhausted the 2 options we
currently have on the table and could not come to a single option then we
can task Sidley.

Regards

>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 4:17 AM
> To: Greg Shatan
> Cc: Client; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The Reverse Hybrid Model
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Thanks for taking the time to lay out this model carefully.  I think it's
> good to expose it, but I think the exposure makes it clear it isn't worth
> pursuing in greater depth.  More below.
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 01:41:41AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
>
> > In this model, ICANN would still be the source of the right to perform
> > the IANA Functions, as in the current internal model.  However, ICANN
> > would enter into an irrevocable agreement with the Affiliate for the
> > IANA Functions.
>
> The difficulty I see with the proposal lies in those two statements.
>
> My view is that ICANN is not the "source of the right" to perform the
> functions.  The source of the right to perform the protocol parameters
> function is the policy community for those parameters (i.e. the IETF), and
> the source of the right to perform the number resources function is the
> policy community for those parameters (i.e. the RIRs).
>
> The basic problem with this model (and this interpretation of your
> description) is that it requires a fundamental assumption that the
> functions are welded together, and that there is a single body responsible
> for "stewardship" of them.  This is something that the other communities
> simply don't believe.
>
> I therefore don't think there would be value in further elaboration of
> study of this model, because anything that proposes a single source of
> stewardship for all the functions won't fly.
>
> If, on the other hand, the model is supposed to be one in which the
> affiliate gets the right to contract for an entity to act as the naming
> functions operator only, then it isn't clear to me what work this wheel is
> supposed to do.  In order for it to be an effective steward of only those
> functions, it basically needs somehow to perform the job of the community
> for names functions.  But we already have a policy body for names
> functions, however imperfect: ICANN, or perhaps some subset of it.  So, to
> perform this stewardship function for names, the affiliate would have to
> instantiate most (or all) of the accountability measures that ICANN needs
> anyway.  This seems like an excellent way to re-open a number of prior
> decisions.  Moreover, it strikes me that it's quite likely to deliver
> subtle differences with the existing mechanisms, which would offer a
> tempting opportunity to game the system, a potential for procedural
> deadlock, or both.
>
> Therefore, no matter which way I interpret this model, it seems to me that
> it can't possibly yield enough benefit to be worth exploring in greater
> detail.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150414/c297be9d/attachment.html>