[council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition

Jonathan Robinson jrobinson at afilias.info
Tue Feb 24 08:11:53 UTC 2015

Thanks Philip,


Regarding the two questions below, my understanding is as follows:


1.       The purpose of the statement is to provide some positive support
for the work of the CWG in a context where many appeared to be questioning
the extent or effectiveness of the work of the CWG. It was felt that it
would be helpful to the CWG (and to the broader community perceptions of the
CWG) to have a supportive statement by one of the initiating and chartering
organisations i.e. recognising the effort to date.

2.       The effect of endorsing the statement is primarily to support the
view of the Council in the proper way i.e. instead of the Council simply
issuing the statement on its own behalf, the Council appropriately refers
the statement to constituencies and SGs. A secondary benefit of reviewing
the statement is the ongoing raising of the awareness of the current status
of the work of the CWG within the GNSO community such that the GNSO
community is in a state of readiness to appraise (and ideally support) the
final proposal of the CWG when it does come out.


They are an interesting pair of questions in the context of my edits to the
original Tony / Avri draft in that I modified the statement to be more of a
GNSO Council statement as opposed to a GNSO statement. Arguably, in the
former case, the Councillors could simply support the statement and the GNSO
Council issue it. Nevertheless, in my view, it is always preferable to have
such a statement or similar piece of work referred to the SG / Cs and
supported by those SG / Cs.


I trust that helps.




From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com] 
Sent: 23 February 2015 22:59
To: jrobinson at afilias.info; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes';
council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition
Importance: High




Members of the Business Constituency seem to be generally supportive of the
sentiments contained in the draft Statement. However, I am being asked two
questions in regard to it:

1.       What is the overall purpose of issuing the Statement?

2.       What is the effect of a Constituency endorsing the statement - and,
in particular, does it replace the views of any constituency or SG or
preclude a more nuanced and detailed future statement by them?


Once I have those answers I should be able to indicate whether the BC can
support and/or be listed as a signatory.


Thanks and best regards,



PS-This paragraph of the Statement, as modified by you and James, has two

"Given [it's] its co-ordination and policy management role within the GNSO,
the GNSO Council remains committed to assisting the work within CWG, CCWG
and the ICG in order that the community may ultimately deliver a sound,
comprehensive and consensus proposal for the transition of the IANA function
and one that will uphold the principles set forth in the NTIA announcement,
and fully meet the needs of the global Internet community."



Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004





Twitter: @VlawDC


"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey


From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 6:47 AM
To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition


Attached in .pdf if easier to read on some devices.




From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info] 
Sent: 23 February 2015 11:37
To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition


Thanks Tony & Avri,


Please see my suggested edits contained in the attached redline version.




From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
Sent: 23 February 2015 10:11
To: Tony Holmes; <council at gnso.icann.org> List
Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition


I would be happy to support that statement. 




On 23 Feb 2015, at 3:39 am, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> wrote:



Attached is the draft statement compiled by Avri and I on the IANA
transition process.

Comments welcome.




<GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.zip>



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9131 - Release Date: 02/17/15

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20150224/bd3ae49b/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list