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

Gomes, Chuck cgomes at verisign.com
Mon Jun 1 20:49:56 UTC 2015


I don't see anything in your concerns that I disagree with so if there are places where we tighten up the language, I hope you will provide suggestions for clearer language.


From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk]
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 11:44 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; jonathan.robinson at afilias.info; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] GNSO-ccNSO engagement in the Multi-stakeholder model


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.


From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
Sent: 01 June 2015 14:15
To: Martin Boyle; jonathan.robinson at afilias.info<mailto:jonathan.robinson at afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] GNSO-ccNSO engagement in the Multi-stakeholder model


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.


From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto: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<mailto:jonathan.robinson at afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] GNSO-ccNSO engagement in the Multi-stakeholder model


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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150601/70f03ed6/attachment.html>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list