[CWG-Stewardship] A few additional comments for Š Two additional webinars on 6-7 May

Mon May 4 23:39:33 UTC 2015

Martin explains it very well:
> I¹m not sure the IANA team interprets national due process, it just needs to
> see whether it has been carried out.  National processes are dealt with
> locally and I do not think it is reasonable for the IANA team to be experts in
> every jurisdiction, but they also need to beware of trying to impose a
> solution:  it tries to encourage local resolution of disputes.
> 
The documentation of the delegation and redelegation process is published on
the iana.org website.
http://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
-- Elise 


From:  Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
Date:  Monday, May 4, 2015 at 12:56 AM
To:  "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>, Milton L Mueller
<mueller at syr.edu>, 'CW Lists' <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>, Grace
Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>, Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>
Cc:  "'cwg-stewardship at icann.org'" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject:  RE: [CWG-Stewardship] A few additional comments for Š Two
additional webinars on 6-7 May

> Chuck,
>  
> I¹m not sure the IANA team interprets national due process, it just needs to
> see whether it has been carried out.  National processes are dealt with
> locally and I do not think it is reasonable for the IANA team to be experts in
> every jurisdiction, but they also need to beware of trying to impose a
> solution:  it tries to encourage local resolution of disputes.
>  
> But you are perfectly correct  the SOW specifically requires the IANA
> functions operator to present its processes, so it would be good to hear from
> Elise to help us understand where decisions are made.
>  
> Best
>  
> Martin
>  
>  
> 
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
> Sent: 03 May 2015 16:08
> To: Martin Boyle; Milton L Mueller; 'CW Lists'; 'Grace Abuhamad';
> elise.gerich at icann.org
> Cc: 'cwg-stewardship at icann.org'
> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] A few additional comments for Š Two additional
> webinars on 6-7 May
>  
> Thanks Martin.  Is it your understanding that the current IANA team interprets
> national due process and determines that it has been followed?   If so, I
> would like find out whether the IANA team has the same understanding and also
> where in the process that happens.  I added Elise to this thread hoping that
> she can respond.  It is quite possible of course that my understanding of what
> happens is wrong.  I definitely think we all need to be on the same page on
> this.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> 
> From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk]
> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 6:17 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Milton L Mueller; 'CW Lists'; 'Grace Abuhamad'
> Cc: 'cwg-stewardship at icann.org'
> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] A few additional comments for Š Two additional
> webinars on 6-7 May
>  
> Chuck, comments in line below.
>  
> 
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
> Sent: 01 May 2015 14:37
> To: Martin Boyle; Milton L Mueller; 'CW Lists'; 'Grace Abuhamad'
> Cc: 'cwg-stewardship at icann.org'
> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] A few additional comments for Š Two additional
> webinars on 6-7 May
>  
> Martin/Milton,
>  
> Please note my understandings below.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> 
> From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk]
> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 6:44 AM
> To: Milton L Mueller; Gomes, Chuck; 'CW Lists'; 'Grace Abuhamad'
> Cc: 'cwg-stewardship at icann.org'
> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] A few additional comments for Š Two additional
> webinars on 6-7 May
>  
> Obviously then I¹m misunderstanding something Milton.
>  
>> > The IANA Functions operator (IFO) should simply take ICANN¹s instructions.
> [Chuck Gomes] I think this is mostly accurate but I qualify that below.
>  
> Err, no!  The IANA functions operator should base its decisions on agreed
> policy.  In ccTLD cases, rfc1591 is now supplemented (informed) by the work of
> the Framework of Interpretation Working Group.  It also has advice from the
> GAC 2005 Principles.  ICANN (as the Board) does not have a role in telling the
> IANA functions operator what to do in the case of ccTLD delegations or
> revocations.
> [Chuck Gomes] With regard to technical policy (i.e., Internet Standards), my
> understanding is that the IFO would check for compliance and does not need
> specific direction from ICANN in that regard so I think Martin is correct that
> the IFO doesn¹t rely on ICANN¹s instructions for its technical checks.  But
> with regard to ccTLD delegations or revocations, I believe that a Board
> approval is required.  I do not believe that the IFO is involved in any
> interpretation of ICANN policy; rather, ICANN staff confirms that ICANN policy
> has been followed.  I know In the case of gTLDs, no Board action is needed for
> a delegation of a gTLD but ICANN staff confirms that GNSO policy has been
> followed before it ever gets to IANA involvement; it is not the IFO
> responsibility to do that.
>  
> MB:  I believe  and Chris Disspain has explained the role to the ccNSO and to
> others  the Board sees its role on delegations and revocations of ccTLDs as
> assessing a traffic-light report from the IANA functions operator staff:  it
> is essentially a process and documentation check, although it could be used to
> approve a decision where strict adherence to policy (eg on engagement with
> interested parties in countries where this sort of approach is not carried
> out).  In my mind it is not an instruction and the role could be done by a PTI
> Board which has responsibility for the provision of the IANA functions
> operator role.
>  
> This is fundamental  clear separation of policy and the IANA functions
> operator should not be undermined by ICANN giving instructions.  And if I
> remember correctly this principle is clearly embodied in the SOW.  And ICANN
> does not have the power to overrule national due processes.
> [Chuck Gomes] Agreed on the principle of separation policy development and the
> IFO and I think what I described in my previous comments above demonstrates
> clear separation but I am pretty sure that ICANN staff must give confirmation
> (instructions) that ICANN policy (in contrast to technical policy) has been
> satisfied regarding delegations or revocations.  And I do not think that
> violates the principle of separating policy development from the IFO.  I of
> course also agree that ³ICANN does not have the power to overrule national due
> processes² but I don¹t think that means that the IFO would be involved in
> interpreting national due process; isn¹t that ICANN¹s task?
>  
> MB:  For ccTLDs, I do not see where this role is performed.  I¹d also be
> alarmed at other ccTLDs (and hence non-nationals) having a say over a ccTLD.
>  
>> > I don¹t think the IFO should have discretion to make those decisions, it
>> should simply edit the zone file as directed.
> [Chuck Gomes] I think this is a correct statement as I have tried to describe
> above.
>  
> MB:  The IANA functions operator¹s role is surely (again for ccTLDs) to
> ascertain that the decision for change has properly been made (and all other
> decisions can be automated anyway.  But the disagreement is who does have the
> discretion to make those decisions.
>  
> The issue  and hence the complexity  is about who actually has the right to
> make the decisions and direct the IANA functions operator.  The role of the
> IANA functions operator is to identify that a decision is appropriate  and
> the SOW gives some guidance to that, as does the work of the FOIWG.  But it is
> absolutely not ICANN¹s decision.
> [Chuck Gomes] From a technical point of view I agree but not beyond that.  We
> would be getting into a very different situation if the IFO has to make
> decisions regarding whether ICANN policy or national due process is followed.
> That would mean that the IANA functions are much more than technical and
> clerical and it would require very different skills sets.
>  
> MB:  the IANA functions operator (and the current ICANN Board) role is not to
> make the decision, but to verify that the decision is appropriate and
> correctly made.
>  
> Your failure to understand this is perhaps why you feel quite casual about
> re-bidding the IANA functions operation and I do not.
>  
> The ccTLD community has seen the friction caused by ICANN imposing arbitrary
> conditions or questioning legitimate national decisions.  (This history of
> this high-handed approach was one of the motivations for the 2005 GAC
> Principles.)  I do not think that I¹m alone in wanting to avoid as much as
> possible having to start the learning process again with a new contractor.
> [Chuck Gomes] I definitely do not think that ICANN should impose arbitrary
> conditions or question legitimate national decisions but I do not believe that
> that means that the IFO should make those decisions. If we have disagreement
> on this, then I think we need to have some serious discussions so that we are
> all on the same page.
>  
> MB:  I am not arguing that the IANA functions operator makes the decisions.
> It is that the ICANN Board does not make decisions and give instructions.
>  
> Martin
>  
>  
> 
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: 30 April 2015 18:48
> To: Martin Boyle; 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'CW Lists'; 'Grace Abuhamad'
> Cc: 'cwg-stewardship at icann.org'
> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] A few additional comments for Š Two additional
> webinars on 6-7 May
>  
>  
> 
> Thanks for helping to highlight where you and I diverge, Milton.  I¹d take
> changing the operator a lot more seriously than you!
>  
> MM: I don¹t think we actually do diverge on this issue, Martin. See below.
>  
> So whoever takes the IANA functions operator role will need to be aware of the
> back story and be able to command trust.  It is not straight-forward and while
> I am sure there¹s a long list of people who would be able to update names,
> protocol parameters and the gTLD part of the TLD registries, I still struggle
> to think of who might be able to do the ccTLD piece and would also be
> generally trusted.  (Clue  it is not a TLD or a consortium of TLDs.)
>  
> MM: The IANA Functions operator (IFO) should simply take ICANN¹s instructions.
> One benefit of a separated IFO would be the ability to more clearly separate
> those sensitive policy decisions that should really be made by ICANN, and
> those implementations that should be done by the IFO. I agree with you that
> ccTLD redelegations can be more sensitive than gTLD delegations, I don¹t think
> the IFO should have discretion to make those decisions, it should simply edit
> the zone file as directed. Do you disagree?
>  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150504/c2dbd0c2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5037 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150504/c2dbd0c2/smime-0001.p7s>