[CWG-Stewardship] Principles

Tue Dec 9 01:17:18 UTC 2014

Greg,

I assume you meant one from the RrSG instead of the RySG?

Chuck

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 5:12 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Robert Guerra; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles

Chuck,

My answers are inline below.

Greg

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles

My edits and comments are attached.

Greg

Gregory S. Shatan • Abelman Frayne & Schwab

666 Third Avenue • New York, NY 10017-5621

Direct  212-885-9253<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022>

Fax  212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428>

gsshatan at lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>

ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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]
Sent: Sunday, December 7, 2014 5:59 PM
To: Milton L Mueller; Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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]
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2014 5:55 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org]<mailto:[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<mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org]<mailto:[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<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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/20141209/9d3403d3/attachment-0001.html>