[CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore

[Paul Szyndler]

Dear Bernie, Jonathan, Lise and all.



Thank you for your work on this.

I am happy to see all three proposed models receiving equal representation 
in the document.

I note from the versioning of the report (v3.2) that this has been an 
iterative process with a significant number of changes being made along the 
way.



Following these changes, a few of the key tenets behind both the Golden 
bylaw and Trust proposals have been omitted or altered and I believe it is 
appropriate to restate our original ideas and the thinking behind them.



The first point is one of context.

The Golden bylaw model was auDA’s first attempt to develop an alternative to 
Contract Co.

We felt this was necessary not only because we believe in an 
internal-to-ICANN model, but also wanted to help facilitate a balanced 
discussion on all possible options.

In acknowledgement of some community members’ vehement opposition to a 
completely internal model, we proposed the establishment of a trust that 
would place binding obligations on the Board and empower the stakeholder 
community to make future changes.

On the continuum of external-to-internal solutions, we believe this is a 
step towards middle ground and are willing to discuss both as realistic 
alternatives to Contract Co.



On the draft report itself:



·         The description of the Golden Bylaw model, though considerably 
condensed, still reflects a number of the principles behind our proposal.

However, the comment “Separation could possibly require the creation of 
Contract Co. or a trust” was not in our original document.

This may well hold true but would require further discussion.



·         Further on separation: The initiation of a process that may lead 
to separation of IANA from ICANN could only be initiated by the MRT. The 
support of the SOs and ACs to take action is a critical, not optional stage 
of the process.



·         The Golden Bylaw summary notes our proposed “flattening” of the 
structure, but this proposal was made not just to minimise costs and 
resources, but to streamline the effectiveness of the model to the maximum 
extent possible, while maintaining appropriate levels of accountability.



·         The summary of the Trust model is better presented, though there 
is one significant omission. The auDA proposal always envisaged three 
catalysts that could trigger significant change to the management of the 
IANA function. Systemic failings as identified by regular reviews and urgent 
out-of-cycle failings (such as gross negligence or financial failure) have 
been retained. However, we also envisage that significant levels of 
community petitioning could trigger the process. This has been dropped from 
the current draft. To be clear, such petitioning would need to be broadly 
supported. It would not be appropriate for one SO or AC to initiate it. 
While details could be debated, we originally proposed a supermajority vote 
within two SOs/ACs could be a suitable minimum. Note that this is simply the 
process to trigger a review and possible transition. The final action would 
need the support of a far broader segment of the community.



Finally, as a general comment, we note that the benefits, security levels, 
accountability, costs and legal considerations of each model are not covered 
in this summary report, though must be considered and discussed with the 
community as we move forward.



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: 
<http://www.auda.org.au/> www.auda.org.au
Twitter:  <http://twitter.com/auda> @auda | Blog: 
<http://www.auda.org.au/blog/> 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: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org 
[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte
Sent: Monday, 2 February 2015 4:41 AM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore



All, please find attached the draft report for the Singapore meeting and the 
updated timeline.



Questions and comments welcome.



Jonathan and Lise would also like input on questions which could be added to 
this document which would provide useful feedback for our work.



Cheers.



B.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150202/db59214d/attachment.html>