[CWG-Stewardship] Principles

Tue Dec 9 01:42:52 UTC 2014

Yes

On Monday, December 8, 2014, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

>  Greg,
>
>
>
> I assume you meant one from the RrSG instead of the RySG?
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc at gmail.com');>]
> *Sent:* Monday, December 08, 2014 5:12 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* Robert Guerra; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org');>
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gsshatan at lawabel.com');>*
>
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cgomes at verisign.com');>]
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 7, 2014 5:59 PM
> *To:* Milton L Mueller; Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mueller at syr.edu');>]
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 07, 2014 5:55 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org');>
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','%5Bmailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org%5D');>
>  *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 7, 2014 4:18 PM
> *To:* Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org');>
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','%5Bmailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org%5D');>
>  *On Behalf Of *Lise Fuhr
> *Sent:* Friday, December 05, 2014 8:34 AM
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship at icann.org');>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship at icann.org');>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
>

-- 

*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/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141208/12790b8d/attachment-0001.html>