<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Martin,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I'll speak as one of those GNSO non-registry types (I'm in the Intellectual Property Constituency, one of the constituencies of the Commercial Stakeholder Group). If I were to be on the review team (or CSC), I would see my job as determining whether PTI was doing the job required of it in the contract and SLAs, and whether it was meeting the needs of all customers/users (not just gTLD customers/users). Frankly, anything else would be a perversion of the process. I have zero interest in trying to sneak policy issues or debates into an operational review process. I really don't see any reason why "heavy [which I would debate as a characterization] GNSO membership will lead to to re-running policy issues.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I think it is a bit narrow to view the stakeholder groups within the GNSO as essentially policy-development bodies, just because the GNSO's main purpose is policy development. This is an entirely understandable view, but it's not correct. It might make sense if there were "non-policy" stakeholder groups mirroring the GNSO stakeholder groups, but there aren't. As a result, the stakeholder groups in the GNSO deal with all manner of DNS-related issues, not merely policy development, and have done so all along. Furthermore, while each SG or C may represent the perspective of its stakeholders, the SG/Cs (and in particular, the actual individuals who are participating in the CWG and other ICANN matters) are not working solely (or even primarily) out of parochial self-interest. We realize we are involved in a bigger enterprise and that if we are given a hand on the ship's wheel, we cannot merely try to steer the ship toward our own port. Granted, there are some participants who see everything through the perspective of their group's policy desires, and whose every move is intended to advance only those desires. However, those who act singlemindedly and selfishly tend to get marginalized (and in the end, get less done in the long run for their stakeholders as well as for the greater good). Furthermore, those participants tend to gravitate toward those work areas most directly related to their stakeholders' interests, and tend to have little or no interest in other affairs at ICANN. The corollary of this is that those participants who gravitate toward work areas less related to their direct interests tend to be the participants who tend to see the bigger picture, who want to work toward broader goals, and who share the long-term common vision of a highly functional ICANN and DNS. In sum, I think your fears are unfounded.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">That said, clear terms of reference are an excellent idea and should be part of the review team's foundational documents (charter, etc.). I don't think that's a controversial idea (nor a new one). And I don't think there will be any problem with GNSO non-registry stakeholders (or for that matter, non-GNSO non-registry stakeholders) failing to understand or trying to subvert those terms of reference.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Martin Boyle <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk" target="_blank">Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Chuck,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Jonathan & I had a discussion this morning about the implications of my e-mail. In essence my concerns focus on two clear issues:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span style="color:#1f497d"><span>1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#1f497d">GNSO-appointed members intervening on issues relevant to ccTLDs or ccTLD-appointed members intervening on gTLD issues. (This is clear out of line with the principles and criteria document – annex C
of the 2<sup>nd</sup> draft proposal – in particular under 7.ii, 8.ii and 8.iii.)
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span style="color:#1f497d"><span>2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#1f497d">Policy issues becoming criteria in any of the review processes other than a failure of the IANA functions operator abiding by agreed policy. (This is covered in the principles and criteria document
under 5.iii, independence of policy from IANA and 7.)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">In the first case, a large GNSO-nominated membership of the review team would outnumber those who know about the issues affecting ccTLDs: I am concerned that this could lead to reviews being based on performance
against gTLD processes, ignoring or misinterpreting ccTLD issues.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">The second is more subjective. Given that the GNSO is essentially a policy-development organisation, I am concerned that heavy GNSO membership will lead to re-running issues that should be dealt with at the
ICANN level. I would not want to see the PTI (or a successor organisation) being judged on issues where it does not have a role and cannot (or should not) have an influence. Independence of policy from IANA also means that the assessment of the performance
of the IANA functions operator also needs to be independent of policy<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">In our discussion Jonathan & I wondered whether we could include clear statements in the terms of reference for the IFR on these points.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Hope this helps identify a practical way forward.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Martin <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Gomes, Chuck [mailto:<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com" target="_blank">cgomes@verisign.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 01 June 2015 14:15<br>
<b>To:</b> Martin Boyle; <a href="mailto:jonathan.robinson@afilias.info" target="_blank">jonathan.robinson@afilias.info</a>; <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [CWG-Stewardship] GNSO-ccNSO engagement in the Multi-stakeholder model<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d">Martin,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d">I have no argument at all with your conclusion that “</span>we – gs and cs – have at least equal interest in the provision of a well-run IANA functions operator.<span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d">”
I think one cause of any imbalances that may be perceived has to do with the fact that gTLD registries are just a subset of the GNSO while the ccNSO only involves ccTLD registries, albeit not all of them. That said, I personally support efforts to achieve
as much balance as possible between c’s and g’s.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d">Chuck<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Martin Boyle<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 01, 2015 3:58 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:jonathan.robinson@afilias.info" target="_blank">jonathan.robinson@afilias.info</a>;
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CWG-Stewardship] GNSO-ccNSO engagement in the Multi-stakeholder model<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jonathan,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In one of Friday’s calls I noted the imbalance between GNSO and ccNSO (and wider ccTLD) engagement in the various entities the model is putting in place. You responded that the GNSO is not an homogenous organisation. I let the discussion
drop, not because I was happy with the response, but because I was getting no traction in the discussion and did not want to delay it any further.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, I would like to at least put on the record why I think the current imbalance is wrong and gives too much say to a GNSO-skewed view of the IANA.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’m sure that the traditional balance in favour of the gTLD-centric view of the universe works fine in an ICANN setting, given that most of this is about policy-making and relatively little of this implicates ccTLDs. This is the main reason
for the disproportionate funding of ICANN’s costs between the GNSO and ccNSO: simply put, ccTLDs use considerably less of ICANN’s resources.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, for the IANA, without exact figures to hand, I would expect the balance in use between ccTLDs and gTLDs of the IANA services to be much more equal and most ccTLDs recognise the need for fair funding of the IANA functions operation.
Certainly I’d say we – gs and cs – have at least equal interest in the provision of a well-run IANA functions operator.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But a serious alarm went up for me a few weeks ago when I had an extended exchange on list with Chuck and Milton about ICANN instructions to IANA. (For many of you, this must have seemed like an esoteric discussion. I’d say it was symptomatic
of a fundamental issue that we are failing to address.)<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The gTLD view of life (in this case) was all about ICANN giving instructions to the IANA functions operator. That is certainly not the case for ccTLDs, but I got a lot of abuse for pointing this out. It only was resolved when the ICANN
(ccNSO-focussed) secretariat was asked to clarify. In a post transition world, I’m not sure how easy it we will be able to draw on this experience and knowledge to back up a point.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That is my fundamental concern about the imbalance between the ccNSO and GNSO. Especially a concern as the constituent parts of the GNSO are heavily policy focussed. It will be so easy for the GNSO representatives in various discussions
to focus on gTLD issues (ignoring that ccTLD delegations and redelegations are actually usually well outside an ICANNic framework) and misshape the discussion accordingly.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’m not sure that the current proposed imbalance will be sustainable in the long term unless it is very clear that different needs are respected. (In the same way, in the ccTLD world, we need to be very cautious about not applying inappropriate
blanket rules.)<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Simply ignoring the significant number of ccTLD comments about the imbalance might be an easy solution, but it is not a good compromise.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I hope that this helps colleagues understand my very real concerns about our direction of travel.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Martin<u></u><u></u></p>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>