[CCWG-ACCT] Additional Document for discussion

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Dear Mr Arasteh,

I fully agree with your below statement, but would go a little further, in that even in a multi stakeholder environment, stakeholders have their "stakes". 

Now, as example, you and I disagree on whether states have sovereignty over the corresponding ccTLDS, which we might even be able to reconcile under the 2005 GAC Principles' existing rights grandfather clause, but the concept of Significantly Interested Party ("SIP"), recently introduced by the FoI Principles is helpful. 

We can all agree that individual governments most certainly are (at least) SIP concerning the corresponding ccTLD. Whatever that eventually means, and in the FoI Principles it only pertains to the selection of a ccTLD manager, either after a revocation or at (new) delegation, but not with regards to the revocation itself. 

The Namibian government ("GRN") has most certainly a Significant Interest in the management of .NA (from a Public Policy perspective) but, while perhaps interested in other ccTLDs, does not have a Significant Interest in them, as its Public Policy applies only to Namibia.

The GRN may have some Significant Interest in .AFRICA, and while it may have an interest in a (hypothetical) .TEHERAN, it may not have a Significant Interest there.

Generally speaking, ALAC and/or GNSO constituents may have an interest in one or more ccTLDs but they most definitively are not SIP.

I, as most, if not all ccTLD managers, generally keep out of ALAC with the possible exception of AfrICANN (given my technical and outreach expertise I might, or not, be SIP) and out of GNSO, though I share some interests with the Registry Community, in particular technical, which would raise to the level of SIP, unless policies were developed that affected all TLD Managers crossing the two constituencies).

This must be reflected in both the Accountability but also Transition proposals.

greetings, el

-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On Feb 17, 2015, at 09:23, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear All
> The treatment and processing of gTLD is quite different from that if ccTLD
> There seems inappropriate to treat these two entirely different issues in the same manner.
> Kavouss 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 16 Feb 2015, at 19:51, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Roelof:
>> 
>> It occurs to me that you might not be clear on what "Consensus Policy" means in this context.
>> 
>> "Consensus Policy" is a specifically defined term used in the ICANN Bylaws and defined in the gTLD Registry Agreement and Registrar Accreditation Agreement.  (To the best of my knowledge, it is not used in the ccTLD context.)  It refers to policy developed through the GNSO Policy Development Process, and specifically to policy which is meant to create binding obligations on gTLD registries and registrars.  Consensus policy is developed by a Working Group, which must approve its recommendations by consensus of the Working Group (such consensus is "rough" consensus rather than "full" consensus).  The potential Consensus Policy must then be approved by a GNSO Council Supermajority vote.  If approved, it is a "PDP Recommendation.  The PDP Recommendation then goes to the ICANN Board.  The Board must then adopt the PDP Recommendation unless it is rejected by a 2/3 vote. The vote is supposed to take place "as soon as feasible, but preferably not later than the second meeting after receipt of a Board Report on the PDP Recommendation, prepared by an ICANN Staff Manager.
>> 
>> I hope this helps you understand what is being discussed.  Becky or others, please feel free to correct or clarify.
>> 
>> In terms of measuring consensus, the Final Report of a PDP Working Group contains a record of the position of each participant with regard to consensus.  I don't think there is any particular need for this Working Group to delve into GNSO PDP Working Group Procedures, at least not as a Work Stream 1 issue.  I assume this was not what you were suggesting, in any event.
>> 
>> There may be accountability issues relating to the Board's actions in approving consensus policy.  For instance, I'm not sure if the Board ever approved or rejected certain PDP Recommendations relating to IGO/INGO identifiers that differed from GAC Policy Advice.  These were before the Board for a vote on 30 April 2014, and the Board tried to broker a compromise, rather than directly face the issue of a "policy collision" between the GNSO and the GAC.  In the interim, the GAC's "Advice" is in effect, not the GNSO's PDP Recommendation (in spite of the of the fact that the GNSO is supposed to be the source for GNSO policy).
>> 
>> Hope this helps.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Greg
>> 
>>> [...]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150217/8fd14fff/attachment.html>