[CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process

Fri May 15 15:19:07 UTC 2015

Milton:

Thank you for the clarification.

The misunderstanding (at least in my case) is based on the fact that it does not make sense for ICANN to keep any relationship, in the context of the naming function, with an Independent PTI. After all, PTI becomes independent because something went wrong with the affiliate relationship to start with.  In other words, is like you said, an independent PTI is just "nothing more than a small nonprofit corporation without a funding source". Most probably an Independent PTI will not exist except if the protocol and numbers want to keep their relationship with them. 

-ed

> On May 15, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
> 
> Milton,
>  
> Am I correct in concluding from your comments below that your definition of ‘separation’ would simply be separation of PTI from ICANN?
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 4:51 AM
> To: Donna Austin; Eduardo Diaz; Avri Doria
> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
>  
> This whole discussion seems misguided to me.
>  
> A free-standing IANA is nothing unless it has a contract from the policy making entity (ICANN) to update the DNS root for it. It only has the authority to do what the policy authority contracts with it to do.
>  
> To view a free-standing IANA as a “Contract Co” is to fundamentally misunderstand both Contract Co and PTI. Contract Co was the entity that was authorized to contract for the IANA functions – in other words, it occupied the role that ICANN now occupies in the CWG proposal. And PTI occupies the role of contractor.  This is true whether PTI is a subsidiary, an affiliate, free standing or whatever. PTI is not anything  like what Contract Co was; it is on the other end of the contract.
>  
> To respond to Donna’s question about who PTI would be accountable to if it is was “set free of ICANN” the answer is stunningly obvious: it would be accountable to whoever contracted with it to perform the IANA functions. Which would, of course, still be ICANN. If ICANN did not contract with it and PTI was independent, then PTI would be nothing more than a small nonprofit corporation without a funding source.
>  
> Let’s not forget this basic fact: PTI HAS NO REVENUE SOURCE other than what ICANN, or possibly also the RIRs and IETF, pay it to perform the IANA functions.
>  
> I can’t help but be a bit disturbed to see such fundamental misunderstandings at this stage of the game.
>  
> --MM
>  
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Donna Austin
> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 8:03 PM
> To: Eduardo Diaz; Avri Doria
> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
>  
> Eduardo
>  
> Strictly speaking I don’t think it is, but there is a question of who PTI would be accountable to if it was set free from ICANN and continued to perform the IANA function. In considering the accountability question we could end up back at Contract Co. discussion, which at the end of the day was unacceptable to most.
>  
> Donna
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Eduardo Diaz
> Sent: Thursday, 14 May 2015 4:35 PM
> To: Avri Doria
> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
>  
> Avri:
>  
> The fifth separation mechanism is basically the creation of a Contract CO. Is this correct?
>  
> -ed
>  
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Avri Doria <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] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:19 PM
> > To: 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
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150515/816b9424/attachment-0001.html>