[CWG-Stewardship] GNSO-ccNSO engagement in the Multi-stakeholder model

[Greg Shatan]

Martin,

I'll speak as one of those GNSO non-registry types (I'm in the Intellectual
Property Constituency, one of the constituencies of the Commercial
Stakeholder Group).  If I were to be on the review team (or CSC), I would
see my job as determining whether PTI was doing the job required of it in
the contract and SLAs, and whether it was meeting the needs of all
customers/users (not just gTLD customers/users).  Frankly, anything else
would be a perversion of the process.  I have zero interest in trying to
sneak policy issues or debates into an operational review process.  I
really don't see any reason why "heavy [which I would debate as a
characterization] GNSO membership will lead to to re-running policy issues.

I think it is a bit narrow to view the stakeholder groups within the GNSO
as essentially policy-development bodies, just because the GNSO's main
purpose is policy development.  This is an entirely understandable view,
but it's not correct.  It might make sense if there were "non-policy"
stakeholder groups mirroring the GNSO stakeholder groups, but there
aren't.  As a result, the stakeholder groups in the GNSO deal with all
manner of DNS-related issues, not merely policy development, and have done
so all along.  Furthermore, while each SG or C may represent the
perspective of its stakeholders, the SG/Cs (and in particular, the actual
individuals who are participating in the CWG and other ICANN matters) are
not working solely (or even primarily) out of parochial self-interest.  We
realize we are involved in a bigger enterprise and that if we are given a
hand on the ship's wheel, we cannot merely try to steer the ship toward our
own port.  Granted, there are some participants who see everything through
the perspective of their group's policy desires, and whose every move is
intended to advance only those desires.  However, those who act
singlemindedly and selfishly tend to get marginalized (and in the end, get
less done in the long run for their stakeholders as well as for the greater
good).  Furthermore, those participants tend to gravitate toward those work
areas most directly related to their stakeholders' interests, and tend to
have little or no interest in other affairs at ICANN.  The corollary of
this is that those participants who gravitate toward work areas less
related to their direct interests tend to be the participants who tend to
see the bigger picture, who want to work toward broader goals, and who
share the long-term common vision of a highly functional ICANN and DNS.  In
sum, I think your fears are unfounded.

That said, clear terms of reference are an excellent idea and should be
part of the review team's foundational documents (charter, etc.).  I don't
think that's a controversial idea (nor a new one).  And I don't think there
will be any problem with GNSO non-registry stakeholders (or for that
matter, non-GNSO non-registry stakeholders) failing to understand or trying
to subvert those terms of reference.

Greg

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
wrote:

>  Chuck,
>
>
>
> Jonathan & I had a discussion this morning about the implications of my
> e-mail.  In essence my concerns focus on two clear issues:
>
>
>
> 1.       GNSO-appointed members intervening on issues relevant to ccTLDs
> or ccTLD-appointed members intervening on gTLD issues.  (This is clear out
> of line with the principles and criteria document – annex C of the 2nd
> draft proposal – in particular under 7.ii, 8.ii and 8.iii.)
>
>
>
> 2.       Policy issues becoming criteria in any of the review processes
> other than a failure of the IANA functions operator abiding by agreed
> policy.  (This is covered in the principles and criteria document under
> 5.iii, independence of policy from IANA and 7.)
>
>
>
> In the first case, a large GNSO-nominated membership of the review team
> would outnumber those who know about the issues affecting ccTLDs:  I am
> concerned that this could lead to reviews being based on performance
> against gTLD processes, ignoring or misinterpreting ccTLD issues.
>
>
>
> The second is more subjective.  Given that the GNSO is essentially a
> policy-development organisation, I am concerned that heavy GNSO membership
> will lead to re-running issues that should be dealt with at the ICANN
> level.  I would not want to see the PTI (or a successor organisation) being
> judged on issues where it does not have a role and cannot (or should not)
> have an influence.  Independence of policy from IANA also means that the
> assessment of the performance of the IANA functions operator also needs to
> be independent of policy
>
>
>
> In our discussion Jonathan & I wondered whether we could include clear
> statements in the terms of reference for the IFR on these points.
>
>
>
> Hope this helps identify a practical way forward.
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
> *Sent:* 01 June 2015 14:15
> *To:* Martin Boyle; jonathan.robinson at afilias.info;
> cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] GNSO-ccNSO engagement in the
> Multi-stakeholder model
>
>
>
> Martin,
>
>
>
> I have no argument at all with your conclusion that “we – gs and cs –
> have at least equal interest in the provision of a well-run IANA functions
> operator.”  I think one cause of any imbalances that may be perceived has
> to do with the fact that gTLD registries are just a subset of the GNSO
> while the ccNSO only involves ccTLD registries, albeit not all of them.
> That said, I personally support efforts to achieve as much balance as
> possible between c’s and g’s.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Martin Boyle
> *Sent:* Monday, June 01, 2015 3:58 AM
> *To:* jonathan.robinson at afilias.info; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] GNSO-ccNSO engagement in the
> Multi-stakeholder model
>
>
>
> Jonathan,
>
>
>
> In one of Friday’s calls I noted the imbalance between GNSO and ccNSO (and
> wider ccTLD) engagement in the various entities the model is putting in
> place.  You responded that the GNSO is not an homogenous organisation.  I
> let the discussion drop, not because I was happy with the response, but
> because I was getting no traction in the discussion and did not want to
> delay it any further.
>
>
>
> However, I would like to at least put on the record why I think the
> current imbalance is wrong and gives too much say to a GNSO-skewed view of
> the IANA.
>
>
>
> I’m sure that the traditional balance in favour of the gTLD-centric view
> of the universe works fine in an ICANN setting, given that most of this is
> about policy-making and relatively little of this implicates ccTLDs.  This
> is the main reason for the disproportionate funding of ICANN’s costs
> between the GNSO and ccNSO:  simply put, ccTLDs use considerably less of
> ICANN’s resources.
>
>
>
> However, for the IANA, without exact figures to hand, I would expect the
> balance in use between ccTLDs and gTLDs of the IANA services to be much
> more equal and most ccTLDs recognise the need for fair funding of the IANA
> functions operation.  Certainly I’d say we – gs and cs – have at least
> equal interest in the provision of a well-run IANA functions operator.
>
>
>
> But a serious alarm went up for me a few weeks ago when I had an extended
> exchange on list with Chuck and Milton about ICANN instructions to IANA.
> (For many of you, this must have seemed like an esoteric discussion.  I’d
> say it was symptomatic of a fundamental issue that we are failing to
> address.)
>
>
>
> The gTLD view of life (in this case) was all about ICANN giving
> instructions to the IANA functions operator.  That is certainly not the
> case for ccTLDs, but I got a lot of abuse for pointing this out.  It only
> was resolved when the ICANN (ccNSO-focussed) secretariat was asked to
> clarify.  In a post transition world, I’m not sure how easy it we will be
> able to draw on this experience and knowledge to back up a point.
>
>
>
> That is my fundamental concern about the imbalance between the ccNSO and
> GNSO.  Especially a concern as the constituent parts of the GNSO are
> heavily policy focussed.  It will be so easy for the GNSO representatives
> in various discussions to focus on gTLD issues (ignoring that ccTLD
> delegations and redelegations are actually usually well outside an ICANNic
> framework) and misshape the discussion accordingly.
>
>
>
> I’m not sure that the current proposed imbalance will be sustainable in
> the long term unless it is very clear that different needs are respected.
> (In the same way, in the ccTLD world, we need to be very cautious about not
> applying inappropriate blanket rules.)
>
>
>
> Simply ignoring the significant number of ccTLD comments about the
> imbalance might be an easy solution, but it is not a good compromise.
>
>
>
> I hope that this helps colleagues understand my very real concerns about
> our direction of travel.
>
>
>
>
>
> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150601/b1f7f9f3/attachment.html>