[CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments
Matthew Shears
mshears at cdt.org
Fri Jun 5 11:53:44 UTC 2015
I agree Greg and have similar concerns to Staffan and Martin. But on
your second point have we specified how the board would do this:
t/he Board could initiate an RFP or other change to IANA functions
operations without a SIFR/
Matthew
On 6/5/2015 12:48 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> I see this as a community power. Frankly, the Board could initiate an
> RFP or other change to IANA functions operations without a SIFR.
>
> Greg
>
> On Friday, June 5, 2015, Staffan Jonson <staffan.jonson at iis.se
> <mailto:staffan.jonson at iis.se>> wrote:
>
> The rationale for giving ICANN (or PTI) the ability to initiate a
> SIFR would allude to some general principles of transparency
> (’everybody should be able to check everybody’). In my view the
> principles behind is an interesting discussion, but not very much
> more. The current Hybrid model and contract governance give ICANN
> a lot of power, the upper hand so to say. So according to proposal
> ICANN will already control IANA functions operations.
>
> So who would ICANN scrutinize with its review power? Its own
> supporting organizations? SO:s and AC:s? Most cc:s are not even
> contracted with ICANN, and have few plans to become. Or would
> ICANN need to review its own IANA operations with an external
> organization? The latter would to me indicate lack of control. Or
> dual representation by MS community.
>
> So a practical answer is: It wouldn’t need to. And I see very few
> possibilities of change in this area.
>
> So my answer is more along a pragmatic stream: Is this relevant
> for the CWG? Now? Do we really, really need to include this aspect
> in transition? This late? Are we limiting our deliberations to
> what is absolutely necessary for the transition, or are we – once
> the window of ooportunity is open- trying to make it a perfect
> world? I would say no to both.
>
> Another answer relates to direct process: The need for a review is
> about accountability, so any power for ICANN to review itself
> should preferably be discussed by CCWG (WS2).
>
> However what might be valid, is that ICG soon will have to handle
> up to three parallel mechanisms for review (one from each
> community within CWG). Maybe we should remind them of the
> potential need to coordinate review mechanisms.
>
> Staffan
>
> With best regards
>
> Staffan Jonson
>
> Mr. Staffan Jonson, Senior Policy Adviser
>
> .SE (The Internet Infrastructure foundation)
>
> BOX 7399 | SE-103 91 STOCKHOLM | SWEDEN
>
> Direct: +46 8 452 35 74 | SMS: +46 73 317 39 67
>
> staffan.jonson at iis.se
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','staffan.jonson at iis.se');> |
> www.iis.se/en <http://www.iis.se/en>
>
> *Från:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org');>]
> *För *Martin Boyle
> *Skickat:*den 5 juni 2015 12:01
> *Till:* Matthew Shears; Milton L Mueller;
> cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship at icann.org');>
> *Ämne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding
> public comments
>
> I struggle to imagine why the ICANN Board (any more than the PTI
> Board) would want to initiate an SIFR, in particular without the
> support of the community. Worse, I would feel that there would be
> a “cunning plan” somewhere behind such a decision and that leaves
> me seriously questioning why we would want this process to be
> triggered in such a way. No support for an SIFR, no overriding
> ICANN (or PTI) Board to ignore interests of the community.
>
> If someone can see possible reasons, I’d like to hear them. Then
> any trigger route could be defined (and limited) more carefully.
>
> Martin
>
> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org');>]
> *On Behalf Of *Matthew Shears
> *Sent:* 05 June 2015 06:17
> *To:* Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship at icann.org');>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M
> regarding public comments
>
> But what would the thresholds be? And, currently an SIFR comes as
> a result of other mechanisms being exhausted as well as the IANA
> probems resolution process.
>
> /The Special IFR would be triggered by a supermajority vote of
> each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal
> procedures for determining supermajority. /
>
> Would we require a supermajority of only the Board, or in addition
> to the ccNSO and GNSO. And as a result of the mechanisms being
> exhausted? I would assume so.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 6/5/2015 4:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> I can't
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship');>-
>
> bounces at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bounces at icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
>
> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 5:02 PM
>
> To:avri at acm.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri at acm.org');>;cwg-stewardship at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship at icann.org');>
>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public
>
> comments
>
>
>
> Good catch Avri and good question. Can anyone think of a reason why the
>
> ICANN Board should not be able to request an SIFR?
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship');>-
>
> bounces at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bounces at icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:39 PM
>
> To:cwg-stewardship at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship at icann.org');>
>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public
>
> comments
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I am part of DT-M and partly responsible for this.
>
>
>
> But. It has a cost, which I did mention on the DT-M list:
>
>
>
> There is currently no mechanism defined for the Board to initiate a SIFR.
>
>
>
> Should there be?
>
>
>
> avri
>
>
>
>
>
> On 04-Jun-15 16:10, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
>
>
> Here is DT-M's final proposed response to comment review tool item #
>
> 246 regarding AFRALO's suggestion that the PTI Board be allowed to
>
> initiate a SIFR directly: *"DT M carefully considered the
>
> recommendation to allow the PTI Board to initiate a Special IFR but
>
> decided against that while at the same time noting that the PTI Board
>
> could request that the ICANN Board consider doing so."*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If there are any questions, please let me know.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
>
>
> "This message (including any attachments) is intended only
>
> for the use of the individual or entity to which it is
>
> addressed, and may contain information that is non-public,
>
> proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from
>
> disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
>
> attorney work product. If you are not the intended
>
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
>
> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
>
> communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
>
> this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete
>
> this message immediately."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship at icann.org');>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship at icann.org');>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship at icann.org');>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>
--
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/20150605/fa7e7073/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list