[DTM Escalation] FW: Final response from DT-M regarding public comments

[Gomes, Chuck]

Please see below the dialog that Staffan and I have had on the response to the AFRALO comments.  Also, in case you didn’t see the fairly extension discussion on this on the CWG list, I want to call your attention to the recommendation I made a few minutes ago:

I suggest the following as response to AFRALO’s comment: “DT M carefully considered the suggestion to allow the PTI Board to initiate a Special IFR but decided to recommend that the CWG not support it.  After additional and fairly extensive discussion, the CWG decided to support the DT-M recommendation, noting that the PTI Board could communicate any reasons it has for further escalation of a problem to the CSC, which could then consider whether to escalate the problem to the ccNSO and GNSO.”

Chuck

From: Staffan Jonson [mailto:staffan.jonson at iis.se]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 3:42 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Subject: SV: [DTM Escalation] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments

Yes, it is OK to cc DTM list on this.

However, In this situation, I would suggest staying at reminding ICG of the complexity of this (three party) aspect, without proposing further initiatives at this late hour.
Allowing ICANN board to open a review is a bit like reversing the rifle in the opposite direction. I’m not sure it is a good idea, since it would open up to many further questions. I also believe it is slightly outside the CWG remit. Preferably this aspect could be discussed in CCWG (WS 2).

Staffan



Från: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
Skickat: den 5 juni 2015 01:34
Till: Staffan Jonson
Ämne: RE: [DTM Escalation] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments

I don’t think it has been raised before Staffan, or if it has, I missed it.

I think all we would be saying is that the ICANN Board could initiate a SIFR, nothing more.  It would be up to the SIFRT to decide what to do with the review.

This raises another question in my mind: Should the IETF and the RIRs be able to request a SIFR because PTI is servicing them as well.  Of course we would need to run that by them.

Your suggestion of asking the ICG may be the best way to handle this, i.e., ask the ICG whether they recommend that the ICANN Board, the IETF and/or the RIRs should be able to initiate a SIFR?

Is it okay if I cc the DT-M list on this?

Chuck

From: Staffan Jonson [mailto:staffan.jonson at iis.se]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 6:36 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Subject: Re: [DTM Escalation] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments

Thanks Chuck
Yes, I saw that, and it is a valid question. Faschinating it hasn't been raised before (or has it?).

My first reaction to Avris point is not to rush things (as I did tuesday and yesterday, also due to other reasons than making Lise and Jonathan happy).

My second thought is: Are we limiting our deliberations to what is absolutely necessary for the transition, or are we -once the window of opportunity is open- trying to make it a perfect world.

So the idealistic me would say: of course ICANN board should be able to (by som principle of 'everyone should be able to review everyone'), but the pragmatic me would say: do we really, really need to include that in transition, here? This late?So I guess I'm somewhere inbetween. A bit fatigue of the process, I would lean towards the latter.

A third aspect is that we might send this along to ICG, since this is valid also in relation to IANA-plan and CRISP. I assume ICANN will need to  reviews all three communities and compliance to contracts, and as things are developing I believe ICANN will be most influental in naming community, i.e. least need for special reviews among the three communities.

A fourth aspect is: Towards what and who would ICANN turn its review? Its SO:s and AC:s? Hybrid model and contract governance, give ICANN the upper hand, so to say.

So my maybe most valid point is: lets remind ICG about this aspect.

:)
Staffan Jonson
staffan.jonson at iis.se<mailto:staffan.jonson at iis.se>
+46 (0)73 317 39 67
(Sent from a device)

5 jun 2015 kl. 00:01 skrev Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>:
Thanks Staffan.  Did you see Avri’s post on the CWG list that as it stands now the ICANN Board is not included as being able to initiate a SIFR?  I followed up with the question as to whether anyone could think of a reason why they should not be able to do that.

Thoughts?

Chuck

From: Staffan Jonson [mailto:staffan.jonson at iis.se]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 5:49 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Subject: Re: [DTM Escalation] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments

Chuck
Apologies for late response.
I believe this is a good way forward.
Thank You
--

Staffan

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

Från: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>
Datum: torsdag 4 juni 2015 22:10
Till: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
Kopia: "DT-M (dt6 at icann.org<mailto:dt6 at icann.org>)" <dt6 at icann.org<mailto:dt6 at icann.org>>
Ämne: [DTM Escalation] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments

Here is DT-M’s final proposed response to comment review tool item # 246 regarding AFRALO’s suggestion that the PTI Board be allowed to initiate a SIFR directly:  “DT M carefully considered the recommendation to allow the PTI Board to initiate a Special IFR but decided against that while at the same time noting that the PTI Board could request that the ICANN Board consider doing so.”

If there are any questions, please let me know.

Chuck
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt6/attachments/20150605/1db54dd1/attachment-0001.html>