[CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Fri May 15 05:23:40 UTC 2015
Hi,
On 15-May-15 01:35, Eduardo Diaz wrote:
> Avri:
>
> The fifth separation mechanism is basically the creation of a Contract
> CO. Is this correct?
I do not think so.
ICANN itself, with all the new accountabilty stuff is eqiuvalent of
Contract Co. - IANA Stewardship organization.
What the fifth option seems to me to be, is the creation of a free
standing IANA company that is one has a contract with ICANN to do the
services for Names. ICANN is still the one awarding the contract.
Some have argued that having PTI owned by ICANN means that they will be
manipulated by ICANN. Some do not trust that ICANN will keep an arm's
length relationship with the PTI. If there came a day when complete
separation were necessary for the well being and indepndnece of the IANA
entity then one of the option might be to spin it out as an independent
company.
Scenario (_/*purely speculative*/_ but Jonathan asked for Scenarios): A
one day, after Accountability WS2 , ICANN has developed a viable
wistleblower policy, and a whistleblower comes along with conclusive
evidence of how ICANN VPs are using their power over the PTI to make
sure that family members are being given the best jobs with
extraordinary salaries at PTI, they have forced out some of the senior
PTI talent and are being protected from having to do any work. We
further learn that others at ICANN have been engaged in a cover-up of
this activity and engaged in a pattern of intimidation. As a result,
other PTI employees are not only being paid less that the ICANN cronies,
they are no longer able to get the work done properly. As a
consequence, CSC has been complaining about a pattern of irresponsiblity
especially in repsonding to customer complaints. The SR is initiated
and after seeing evidence that convinces them this cannot be cured
without complete separation, there is a decsion to set up the PTI as a
fully separate entity that has a contractual relationship with ICANN but
does not own the PTI.
Improbable. but in the word of possible scenarios, not an unheard of
possibility.
S
But the contract would still be between ICANN the Policy entity and IANA.
avri
>
> -ed
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
> hi,
>
> On 14-May-15 23:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > Avri,
> >
> > Why would the recommendations of this review need to be approved
> by the ICANN board?
>
> That is one of the questions asked?
> Most reviews are approved by the Board before they have further
> action.
> Isn't it part of the check and balances. And if they don't agree
> isn't
> that why we have the various redress mechanisms?
>
> >
> > The fifth possible separation mechanism is " Initiate full
> separation of the IANA affiliate". Does this mean separation of
> PTI from ICANN?
>
> Yes. one of the option in the various models we discussed was an
> independent free standing PTI depending on the circumstances, this
> might an option those responsible at the time might want to consider.
> As I said in the meeting today, I think the point is avoid
> presaging the
> type of decision they might need to take.
>
> avri
>
>
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:19 PM
> > To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I did an update on the file.
> >
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrETRqg/edit?usp=sharing>
> > and attached a pdf version to this note.
> >
> > * Received some comments which I tried to include
> > * Responded to Sibley comments, I think
> > * Largely separated the process from who does it
> > * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include:
> > o who dies it:
> > + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR
> > would be designated]
> > o how it is initiated:
> > + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as
> > approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in
> the case
> > of Board rejection via escalation procedure.
> > + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO
> > + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs
> > o method of operation
> > + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to
> be made
> > by CWG)
> > #
> >
> > A process initiated in the IFR
> >
> > #
> >
> > Function as a Cross Community Working Group and
> would
> > follow established guidelines for
> multistakeholder cross
> > community working groups. In this case the
> participants
> > would be either (decision to be made by CWG):
> >
> > 1.
> >
> > Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the
> > Separation Review.
> >
> > 2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and
> > proportions to include the broader community as this
> > will affect the entire community.
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's
> meeting so will miss the middle hour, but I do think this is
> something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the
> near future.
> >
> > avri
> >
> > o
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > http://www.avast.com
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
> --
> *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.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list