[CWG-Stewardship] The Reverse Hybrid Model

Tue Apr 14 10:18:08 UTC 2015

+ 1 Chuck

On 4/14/2015 11:32 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> Note Seun that I suggested that we ask Sidley to provide ‘a high level 
> response’; that was intentional on my part because I also think it is 
> important to use Sidley’s time as effectively as possible. And I also 
> have concerns about working in a serial manner because I don’t think 
> we have the time for that.  Besides, if there are ideas in this new 
> model that can be used in what we are currently considering, it would 
> be better to identify them now rather than later.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:*Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 14, 2015 5:20 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* Andrew Sullivan; Greg Shatan; Client; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The Reverse Hybrid Model
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com 
> <mailto: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>
>     [mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
>     _______________________________________________
>     CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>     CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>     _______________________________________________
>     CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>     CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> /Seun Ojedeji,
> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
> web: //http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
> //Mobile: +2348035233535//
> //alt email:<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng 
> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>/
>
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-- 
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150414/62fa5818/attachment-0001.html>