[CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Fri Jun 5 20:54:11 UTC 2015
I am inclined not to agree. ICANN control means ICANN control, and I can think of all kinds of reasons why a board concerned with performance might want to initiate an RFP on its own initiative.
> -----Original Message-----
>
> I am inclined to agree with this: " I do not think that an RFP should be
> initiated without an SIFR & SCWG."
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 11:51 AM
> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public
> comments
>
> Hi,
>
> That is a fascinating question and perhaps a hole in the solution. I do not
> think that an RFP should be initiated without an SIFR & SCWG. I have no
> real issue with the Board, or even the members if we have members,
> initiating a SIFR if they see problems no one else does.
> Perhaps this is the catch all for the wider community issue that some claim
> are not included.
>
> But to have them just decide on their own, for commercial or 'profitability'
> reasons perhaps, without community involvement seems very inappropriate.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 05-Jun-15 07:53, Matthew Shears wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > 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
> 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
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list