[DTC CSC] Public Comments 354 & 355

Tue Jun 2 18:23:28 UTC 2015

But Marika under what circumstances?

From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
Sent: Tuesday, 2 June 2015 11:02 AM
To: Donna Austin; Staffan Jonson; Martin Boyle; dt3 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [DTC CSC] Public Comments 354 & 355

To provide some further context, the DT M proposal is for the PTI Board to be able to submit a request to initiate a SIFR to the ICANN Board who would consider taking into account the normal community consultation mechanisms before deciding whether or not to go ahead with such a request.

Best regards,

Marika

From: Donna Austin <Donna.Austin at ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin at ariservices.com>>
Date: Tuesday 2 June 2015 19:56
To: Staffan Jonson <staffan.jonson at iis.se<mailto:staffan.jonson at iis.se>>, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>>, "dt3 at icann.org<mailto:dt3 at icann.org>" <dt3 at icann.org<mailto:dt3 at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [DTC CSC] Public Comments 354 & 355

I'm not sure I understand why, and under what circumstances, the PTI Board would escalate to the IFRT.

From: Staffan Jonson [mailto:staffan.jonson at iis.se]
Sent: Tuesday, 2 June 2015 10:53 AM
To: Donna Austin; Martin Boyle; dt3 at icann.org<mailto:dt3 at icann.org>
Subject: Re: Public Comments 354 & 355

At DTM some 40 minutes ago, it was argued that Both CSC and PTI board would be able to escalate a SIFR. To me that is a new. However, I couldn't really find strong arguments against it, so it will probably surface as two possible paths in DTM text. If you have strong concerns, please be advised that this is a rather late change, and would be needed to look further to. (Annex J page 74. Point 3 and 4).

It was also discussed if ccNSO and gNSO should be reduced to rather than 'ccNSO and RySG' (Annex J same place). I noticed this lates was a bit controversial last week, so if you have strong issues with this...

--
:)
Staffan

staffan.jonson at iis.se<mailto:staffan.jonson at iis.se>
 +46 73 317 39 67

Från: Donna Austin <Donna.Austin at ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin at ariservices.com>>
Datum: tisdag 2 juni 2015 18:04
Till: Staffan Jonson <staffan.jonson at iis.se<mailto:staffan.jonson at iis.se>>, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>>, "dt3 at icann.org<mailto:dt3 at icann.org>" <dt3 at icann.org<mailto:dt3 at icann.org>>
Ämne: RE: Public Comments 354 & 355

Thanks Steffan and Martin

I'll get to this later today - we will make the deadline.

From: Staffan Jonson [mailto:staffan.jonson at iis.se]
Sent: Tuesday, 2 June 2015 6:25 AM
To: Donna Austin; Martin Boyle; dt3 at icann.org<mailto:dt3 at icann.org>
Subject: SV: Public Comments 354 & 355

List

Please find enclosed a draft for answer.
I mostly (but not exactly and everywhere) pasted in Martins answer, since I agree with a lot of them.

Also enclosing the answers I sent to DT M 2 hours ago FYI (yellow in the table)

I haven't had time to look at your paper yet Donna.
I will have a DT M meeting in 1,5 hours (just before CWG)

Hope this will suffice.
Not much left now, ey? Hang in there :)
Staffan

Från:dt3-bounces at icann.org<mailto:dt3-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:dt3-bounces at icann.org] För Donna Austin
Skickat: den 31 maj 2015 21:11
Till: Martin Boyle; dt3 at icann.org<mailto:dt3 at icann.org>
Ämne: Re: [DTC CSC] Public Comments 354 & 355

Martin

Thanks for your comments. I have not had time to review but hope to do so tomorrow.

Donna

From:dt3-bounces at icann.org<mailto:dt3-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:dt3-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle
Sent: Sunday, 31 May 2015 10:34 AM
To: dt3 at icann.org<mailto:dt3 at icann.org>
Subject: [DTC CSC] Public Comments 354 & 355

"... the concept of a unaffiliated registry being allowed to be a Liaison does make sense as Liaisons are from groups that are explicitly not registries."

There is no reason why a brand registry also a member of the IPC could not be a liaison.  Similarly, it is quite possible that a GAC representative might be from a government operated ccTLD or even that an ALAC member might be a registry operator.  Hence the wording:  we do not think it appropriate to limit the selection of liaisons by their stakeholder group.

"... members and liaisons "will be appointed by their respective communities in accordance with internal processes", but also that "the full membership of the CSC must be approved by the ccNSO and the GNSO"."

I generally agree that it would not be appropriate for the ccNSO and GNSO RySG to veto proposed liaisons.  But there is probably some need for final approval - it would not be reasonable for there to be two people from the same country or even the same organisation (whether members or liaisons).  But it is not expected that the ccNSO and GNSO RySG would make a unilateral decision, but could be expected to discuss liaisons with the groups providing liaisons

Staggered appointments

I have some sympathy here, but there might be reasons why one would not want the same liaison to remain in place ad infinitum.  Perhaps we could suggest that it would be up to those proposing a liaison to set term rules as part of their nomination process, recognising that some rotation is normal good practice.

Charter and review processes

I would have no problems widening to include ALAC and the GAC.  (Actually I'd welcome this as the GNSO has too strong a say in the various mechanisms - it has the unfortunate knack of looking at everything as though it were a gTLD issue.)

IPC concerns

These have already been discussed.  Membership should be related to the role of the CSC and not simply be another forum for sounding out about problems not related to IANA functions operator performance.  I fail to understand any IPC representation need here and hardly see them as being marginalised.  The point seems to be widening the role of the CSC - and I for one would be opposed to this.  (And see above for my continued concerns/irritation of the heavy GNSO engagement in all of these proposed structures!)

I leave it to someone more tactful and less irritable on this issue than I to word the response more diplomatically!

That's the lot, folks!

Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt3/attachments/20150602/2bc4f895/attachment-0001.html>