[CWG-Stewardship] Principles

Mon Dec 8 22:11:55 UTC 2014

Chuck,

My answers are inline below.

Greg

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

>  Greg,
>
>
>
> I agree with your second comment, [GS4]: “In a sense, the same thing
> could be said for each Principle, since we begin by stating that the
> proposal(s) can be tested against the principles and criteria before being
> sent to the ICG.”  But I identified several principles that I think
> require a more extensive effort.
>

GSS; Fair enough.  These are probably those that require particular focus.

>  Comment [GS23] says: “I don’t think this is technically true.  There is
> nothing in the IANA contract that says this.  Maybe this is being confused
> with the “separation from policy” concept.  To be fair, the *structure*
> of the contract (i.e., with limited duration) gives the NTIA the
> opportunity to separate the IANA functions from the current operator, but
> it is not a *requirement* of the contract.”  I think you are correct here
> but what I was suggesting is that we evaluate whether separability of the
> IANA functions from ICANN would be possible under the ICANN-only scenario.
>
GSS:  I think this is an important point, although not one to be thrashed
out in the Principles. Unfortunately, we don't really have an "ICANN-only
scenario," what we have is more like an "ICANN-only idea."

>  Regarding your last comment, [GS27], do I understand you to say that the
> CSC should be multistakeholder?  If so, why do you think that?  And what
> would that mean?
>
GSS: I do believe that the CSC should be multistakeholder.  I don't like
the idea of a unistakeholder group.  Such a group is prone to capture (or
already "captured," depending on how you define capture).  It also raises
transparency concerns, as other stakeholder groups would have no idea what
is going on the CSC (except after the fact), much less to participate in
the work of the CSC.  Other stakeholders provide transparency and a check
against capture.  Also, IANA performance (or lack thereof) does not only
effect registries, it affects (perhaps less directly) many other
stakeholders.

I think that the membership of the CSC could be imbalanced (i.e.,
predominantly registries).  Just to pick some numbers off the top of my
head, there could be 8 registry operators (either split evenly between
ccTLDs and gTLDs, or uneven to reflect the greater number of gTLDs) along
with 6 non-registry members: one representative from RySG, one from CSG,
one from NCSG, one from the GAC, one from SSAC and one from ALAC,

>  Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Monday, December 08, 2014 1:55 AM
> *To:* Robert Guerra
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles
>
>
>
> My edits and comments are attached.
>
> Greg
>
>
>     *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
>
> *666 Third Avenue **ï** New York, NY 10017-5621*
>
> *Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
>
> *Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
>
> *gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*
>
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> *
>
> *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
> wrote:
>
> concur with Milton and Chuck on this one.
>
>
>
> Robert
>
>
>
>   On Dec 7, 2014, at 9:24 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes, I agree. But the principle as formulated implies that every entity
> involved in management must be MS, which I think is excessive.
>
>
>
> *From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com <cgomes at verisign.com>]
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 7, 2014 5:59 PM
> *To:* Milton L Mueller; Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles
>
>
>
> Milton,
>
>
>
> It is ineffective to literally manage in a multistakeholder way but it is
> possible to respect and follow multistakeholder developed policies in
> managing.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu <mueller at syr.edu>]
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 07, 2014 5:55 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles
>
>
>
> I dissent from principle g by the way. I could see why oversight of IANA
> might be multi-stakeholder, but management need not be.
>
>
>
> -MM
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 7, 2014 4:18 PM
> *To:* Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles
>
>
>
> I made a couple more edits in item g at the end of the document.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 07, 2014 4:12 PM
> *To:* 'Lise Fuhr'; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles
>
>
>
> I made a couple edits and suggested a third in my next to last comment.  I
> also identified in my comments some possible action items that the CWG may
> need to perform as soon as possible assuming that the principles are
> adopted by the CWG.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lise Fuhr
> *Sent:* Friday, December 05, 2014 8:34 AM
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Principles
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> We hereby send you a redline and a clean version of the Principles
> document. For the unresolved part, staff has done a table. We recommend
> that we focus on the outstanding issues, that are identified in the
> comments. We welcome any inputs on either the comments or on the redline
> draft. The document will be finalized on the next call.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Martin and Lise
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141208/65241a03/attachment-0001.html>