[CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore

[Gomes, Chuck]

Paul,

I do not personally think that the discussion document should include the pros and cons of the each of the options because I think it might be better to let the community evaluate them on their own without CWG influence.  At the same time I fully recognize that the CWG and the community will have to extensively examine the pros and cons going forward after we get legal advice and have more details developed.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Szyndler
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 9:17 PM
To: Bernard Turcotte; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore

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: paul.szyndler at auda.org.au<mailto:paul.szyndler at auda.org.au> | W: 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/>

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> [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<mailto: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/bc3bb974/attachment-0001.html>