[CCWG-Accountability] [ccnso-members] Re: [Cctldworld] [ccTLDcommunity] Fwd: Accountability measures required by CWG Proposal(s)

Fri Jan 16 13:42:41 UTC 2015

Dear All,
I am surprised by reading such a tone and language as stated below by our
distinguished colleagues Dr. Eberhard Lisse in reply to Chris
Quote
*"The gTLDs need may be to be explained, again, the necessity of their
input into ccTLDs/ccNSO, which is as much as we need another deluge.*

*I am unaware of such nonsense having made it towards CCWG-Accountability
and will object against it, should it."*
Unquote
Would it not be more friendly to  respond ( disagreement ) to a proposal
 with a more friendly and ethical language ?
We should respect each other even if we disagree with their opinion.
This is a democratic environment in which every one has the right to freely
expresses its views and  while being respected .
It is not appropriate to refer to a statement from a respectful
professional in such tone and such strong words
Regards
Kavouss

el
I am unaware of such nonsense having made it towards CCWG-Accountability
and will object against it, should it.

2015-01-16 13:22 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse at gmail.com>:

> The gTLDs need may be to be explained, again, the necessity of their input
> into ccTLDs/ccNSO, which is as much as we need another deluge.
>
> I am unaware of such nonsense having made it towards CCWG-Accountability
> and will object against it, should it.
>
> el
>
> --
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
>
>
> On Jan 16, 2015, at 13:05, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au> wrote:
>
> I’m beginning to think that I may have a blind spot here. Help me to
> figure this out.
>
> Just for clarification, the CWG group is _very_ gTLD Registry focused...
> and Chuck is very gTLD Registry orientated.
>
>
> Agreed. So the remarks by Chuck re ccTLDs are surprising.
>
> The gTLDs want the CWG Accountability Group to have a role in determining
> an Appeals process, whereas it was recognised that ICANN's role with
> respect to (the majority of) ccTLD reassignment was non-existent.
>
>
> How does that sit with Chuck’s suggest that the CCWG...
>
> provide an accountability process that registry operators (*c's* & g's)
> and
> *possibly governments in the case ofccTLDs* can use in cases where they
> think
>
> *delegation and re-delegationdecisions are not in line with approved
> policy or for governments locallaw.*
>
>
> Unless I’m misreading this then it is saying that coming up with such a
> process is the job of the CCWG.
>
> The goal of the CWG should be to create a light weight structure of
> service delivery - as discussed (and agreed) in Frankfurt.
>
>
> Agreed that this is the CWG’s role. Chuck’s point was about the
> expectations of the CCWG on Accountability.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Chris
>
> On 16 Jan 2015, at 22:43 , Paul M Kane <Paul.Kane at icb.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Chris
>
> Just for clarification, the CWG group is _very_ gTLD Registry focused...
> and Chuck is very gTLD Registry orientated.
>
> During yesterday's call it was recognised that (the majority of) ccTLDs
> Registries have a very different relationship with ICANN than that of gTLDs
> Registries.
>
> The gTLDs want the CWG Accountability Group to have a role in determining
> an Appeals process, whereas it was recognised that ICANN's role with
> respect to (the majority of) ccTLD reassignment was non-existent.
>
> The goal of the CWG should be to create a light weight structure of
> service delivery - as discussed (and agreed) in Frankfurt.
> Over the holiday period the process has been captured and the simple
> (accountable) structure has become seriously over-complicated.
> Overburdening the structure is a game currently being played by some to
> sink the initiative, or capture it,  and time is needed to redress the
> balance and loose the excess baggage.
>
> IMHO it is out of scope for the IANA Accountability process to have a
> sanction to remove an ICANN Director - but this also needs more time to
> play out.
>
> Best
>
> Paul
>
>
> Chris Disspain wrote:
>
> Understood Roelof.
>
> My point is that Chuck and others seem to think that it is the CCWG’s job
> to come up with something cc-specific re delegation and re-delegation
> ‘disputes’ rather than higher level accountability mechanisms. If we as a
> community are happy with that then so be it. If we are not then we need to
> tell them.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Chris
>
>
> On 16 Jan 2015, at 21:01 , Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl <
> mailto:Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>>> wrote:
>
> Chris, All,
>
> I would hope that the CCWG comes up with mechanisms that enhance ICANN¹s
> accountability on a higher level than (just) delegation, revocation etc.
> I am comfortable waiting for (and as I am a member, contributing to) the
> deliverables of the CCWG, in the expectation that, once accountability is
> enhanced and stewardship transitioned, the outcome of the FoIWG can be
> inputted, with satisfactory results for us ccTLDs.
>
> Yes, I am an optimist, life is great
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roelof
>
>
>
>
> On 16-01-15 07:53, "Stephen Deerhake" <SDeerhake at nic.as <
> mailto:SDeerhake at nic.as <SDeerhake at nic.as>>> wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> Speaking for .as, I can say that the idea that "the CCWG [be tasked] with
> drafting/creating an accountability process re delegation and
> re-delegation"
> is a complete non-starter.
>
> How can this be even be a serious consideration of the CCWG?
>
> I believe this issue has been addressed by the work of the FoI-WG, and I
> don't see the need to re-invent the wheel here.  Perhaps the larger
> problem
> is getting ICANN to acknowledge and endorse  the work/findings of the
> FoI-WG...  I've seen scant evidence of this to date.
>
> Best,
>
> /Stephen
>
> Stephen Deerhake
> Director of Registry Services
> AS Domain Registry
> GDNS LLC
> +1 212 334 3660
> +1 212 656 1982 (fax)
> sdeerhake at nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake at nic.as <sdeerhake at nic.as>>
> sdeerhake at gdns.net
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cctldcommunity-bounces at cctld-managers.org
> [mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces at cctld-managers.org
> <cctldcommunity-bounces at cctld-managers.org>] On Behalf Of Chris
> Disspain
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 5:58 PM
> To: ccTLD Community List; ccNSO Council; ccNSO Members;
> cctldworld at icann.org
> Subject: [ccTLDcommunity] Fwd: Accountability measures required by CWG
> Proposal(s)
> Importance: High
>
> All,
>
> We need the Accountability CCWG to provide an accountability process
> that
>
> registry operators (c's & g's) and possibly governments in the case of
> ccTLDs can use in cases where they think delegation and re-delegation
> decisions are not in line with approved policy or for governments local
> law.
>
>
> I know I keep pressing on this but I want to make sure we all understand
> before I stop and let it go.
>
> Are we, the ccTLDs comfortable with the CCWG drafting/creating an
> accountability process re delegation and re-delegation?
>
> Is this something we should be doing ourselves pursuant to the
> interpretations of the FoI WG?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd
> T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112
> E: ceo at auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au auDA - Australia's Domain Name
> Administrator
>
> Important 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.
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Accountability measures required by CWG
>
> Proposal(s)
>
> Date: 16 January 2015 01:55:07 AEDT
> To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, CWG IANA
> <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>
> Alan,
>
> First let me put in writing the what I said in the last weekend call:
> We
>
> need the Accountability CCWG to provide an accountability process that
> registry operators (c's & g's) and possibly governments in the case of
> ccTLDs can use in cases where they think delegation and re-delegation
> decisions are not in line with approved policy or for governments local
> law.
> This may be covered by your item 4 (gTLD Delegation or Redelegation Appeal
> within ICANN prior to the change request going to IANA) although I am not
> sure that appeals would always have to happen before going to IANA; that
> would be preferred though.
>
>
> Alan - why do you think that this would conflict with item 2
> (Independent
>
> certification for delegation and re-delegation requests)?  In the case of
> gTLDs, the decision whether or not a gTLD could be delegated or
> re-delegated
> would happen before any certification would occur.  The certification
> would
> simply confirm that required steps were followed properly.  For gTLDs I
> think that any appeal would preferably happen before any certification
> happened but I suppose it could happen afterwards; those details would
> need
> to be defined.  I won't try to venture into the ccTLD world.
>
>
> On a totally different topic with regard to item 2, I don't think that
> is
>
> something that we need the Accountability CCWG to deal with that.  In my
> view, that seems to be clearly in our court.  Any accountability for a
> certification decision would probably be covered by general accountability
> processes.
>
>
> Why is item 6 (Ability to Remove Directors) an action that the CWG needs
>
> from the CCWG.  I agree that we need some specific accountability
> mechanisms
> from the CCWG but we don't specifically need the one that would allow for
> the removal of Directors.  That option may provide some of the
> accountability that the CWG needs but we require that specific option.
>
>
> Chuck
>
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icannorg] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
>
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 1:12 AM
> To: CWG IANA
> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Accountability measures required by CWG
> Proposal(s)
>
> I believe that this is the minimalist list of accountability measures or
>
> accountability-related processes that would be required based on the two
> proposals currently under consideration.
>
>
> I have explicitly not included the wider list of measures that the CCWG
> is
>
> considering for possible inclusion in its WS1, specifically those which
> the
> community would like to see and for which the IANA transition might
> provide
> additional impetus for the Board to approve, but are not absolutely
> required
> to ensure that the IANA transition can occur. I recognize that this is a
> judgement call that not all might agree with.
>
>
> During the last of the four weekend meetings, Chuck mentioned one
>
> additional issue, and referred to a chat exchange between him and Donna
> during the third meeting that listed several other potential
> accountability
> issues. Unfortunately, that chat transcript was not preserved due to an
> error in saving it.
>
>
> The list of measures for the Contract Co. model is based on the list
> that
>
> the Co-Chairs created in December, augmented by Chucks suggestion. I do
> not
> believe that the December list has been negated by any work done in the
> interim, but perhaps I have missed something. I could not find a rationale
> for the inclusion of the first of the three items, but include it here so
> that the CWG could decide if it is based on a real need associated with
> the
> proposal or not. If included, I would suggest the CWG be more specific as
> to
> under what conditions it would apply. Chuck's suggestion seems to conflict
> with the 2nd measure in that the 2nd measure is specified as being
> binding.
> I am also not sure if it could possibly be replaced by the more
> generalized
> IAP (once the request goes to IANA).
>
>
> The requirements for the internal-to-ICANN model are based on my
>
> discussions with a number of people over the last weeks.
>
>
> Contract Co. Model Requirements
>
> 1. Independent Review of Board Actions
>
> Change the ICANN Bylaws to specify that under certain circumstances (to
> be
>
> defined) the determinations of an Independent Review of Board Actions
> Panel
> would be binding and not implemented at the Board's discretions.
>
>
> 2. Independent certification for delegation and re-delegation requests
>
> This would be a replacement for the authorization function for all
> changes
>
> to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database currently performed by the NTIA.
> The
> replacement mechanism would have gTLD requests for delegations and
> re-delegations authorized by an independent third party and its decision
> on
> these matters would be binding on ICANN/IANA.
>
>
> 3. Independent Appeals Panel
>
> An independent review panel must be set up to deal with contested
> changes
>
> to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database. Although discussions are still
> ongoing as to the specifics of such a proposal, it is generally agreed
> that
> the decisions of such a panel would be binding. There may also be a need
> for
> an injunction-like mechanism to defer the change in question during the
> appeal process.
>
>
> 4. gTLD Delegation or Redelegation Appeal within ICANN prior to the
> change request going to IANA
>
> A Registry could appeal an ICANN decision to delegate or redelegate and
>
> gTLD, based on policy not being followed (or presumably contractual terms
> not being followed).
>
>
> Internal-To-ICANN Model Requirements
>
> This model will require all of the above measures plus the following:
>
> 5. Control over ICANN Board decisions.
>
> The ability for ICANN Stakeholders, potentially augmented by other
>
> non-ICANN entities, to mandate or overrule, a particular Board decision,
> or
> to require that the implementation of such a decision be subject to
> consideration of an independent, binding review. These measures might need
> to be augmented by advance notice of such decisions and allow the MS
> community to react. In the most restricted form, this ability might be
> restricted to decisions related to IANA, but in reality, it may not be
> practical to define this scope limitation (ie how to recognize an
> IANA-related decision).
>
>
> 6. Ability to Remove Directors
>
> The ability of the overall multi-stakeholder community to remove some or
>
> all of the Board Directors. In the case of a full Board removal, a
> mechanism
> would be required for appointing an Interim Board and then a replacement
> regular Board. In addition, ACs and SOs could be given the right to recall
> their appointed Director(s).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ccTLDcommunity mailing list
> ccTLDcommunity at cctld-managers.org
> http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
>
> To unsubscribe please send a blank email to
> ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe at lists.cctld-managers.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> ccTLDcommunity mailing list
> ccTLDcommunity at cctld-managers.org
> http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
>
> To unsubscribe please send a blank email to
> ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe at lists.cctld-managers.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cctldworld mailing list
> Cctldworld at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldworld
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150116/9e0c810b/attachment.html>