[council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition

Patrick Myles patrick at centr.org
Mon Mar 2 04:02:53 UTC 2015

Hi Jonathan/all,

Just a more general comment to this topic/process-

Within CENTR we recently came up a fast response mechanism which means we can put a comment/position within a very short timeframe (within days generally) allowing members to opt-out if desired.

I wonder if a similar mechanism would be useful for the GNSO to help with speed? I've attached our process (call BoD statement - fast tracked).
I do realise the structural differences between CENTR and the GNSO however thought a tweaked version of our process might provide inspiration for the GNSO. Or perhaps you've already tried something like that?


From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Tuesday, 24 February 2015 7:12 PM
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.


From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com]
Sent: 23 February 2015 22:59
To: jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council at gnso.icann.org<mailto: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 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

Twitter: @VlawDC

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

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://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/20150302/70915492/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ga52-centr_policy_development_rules_review_and_update-20140923 (2).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 394562 bytes
Desc: ga52-centr_policy_development_rules_review_and_update-20140923 (2).pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20150302/70915492/ga52-centr_policy_development_rules_review_and_update-201409232.pdf>

More information about the council mailing list