[council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition

Fri Feb 27 13:50:24 UTC 2015

Agree with Tony.

Thanks.

Amr

On Feb 27, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> wrote:

> Jonathan
> Whilst I accept it would have been preferable to submit this earlier, it would still provide better optics for the GNSO to be publicly supportive of the process, rather than silent.
> Regards
> Tony
>  
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
> Sent: 26 February 2015 15:30
> To: council at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition
>  
> All,
>  
> In the Registries SG meeting yesterday, there was pushback against this statement. Not with regard to the content as such but rather to the timing.
>  
> If you recall, this was planned to be sent our pre-ICANN 52 and made good sense then. Reinforced by the concerns we heard over the progress of the CWG in Singapore.
>  
> Someone had good foresight pre ICANN 52 - but the key question - does it still make sense / add value?
>  
> Or, does it make us look behind the times?
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com] 
> Sent: 24 February 2015 13:40
> To: jrobinson at afilias.info; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition
>  
> Thanks Jonathan. I’ll pass this along to the BC and get back to you ASAP.
>  
> Best, Philip
>  
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/cell
>  
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>  
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>  
> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:12 AM
> To: Phil Corwin; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition
>  
> 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.
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> 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
>  
> Jonathan:
>  
> 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,
> Philip
>  
> PS—This paragraph of the Statement, as modified by you and James, has two typos:
> "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
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/cell
>  
> 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.
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> 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.
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> 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. 
>  
> David
>  
> On 23 Feb 2015, at 3:39 am, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> wrote:
>  
> 
> Jonathan/All
> Attached is the draft statement compiled by Avri and I on the IANA transition process.
> Comments welcome.
> Regards
> Tony
>  
> <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
> 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/20150227/60a26482/attachment.html>