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

Wed Jun 3 12:44:32 UTC 2015

Jian,

I wish I could say that I understand better but I cannot.  The reality of a consensus process for g’s and c’s and everyone else is that there will be times when participants disagree with one another and cannot reach full consensus.  In those cases it is impossible to give everyone exactly what they want so efforts are made to develop a compromise that most everyone can support.  If one entity doesn’t get what they wanted, it doesn’t mean that they were not treated equally.  In fact, I am not sure what treated equally means.  Everyone should be given the same opportunity to participate in consensus building efforts as much is practically feasible but that does not mean that everyone can get everything they want.

It may be true that c’s disagree with one another more than g’s; I don’t know whether that is true or not but even if it is, what do you suggest as the solution to that?  That is the key question in my opinion.  It seems to me that there may be too much focus on voting rights and not enough focus on working together to develop positions that most if not all can support.  An effective consensus building approach emphasizes the latter and avoids the former as much as possible.

I suggest we spend our time trying to find ways to bridge our differences.

Chuck

From: jczhang at knet.cn [mailto:jczhang at knet.cn]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 3:41 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Erick Iriarte
Cc: cwg-stewardship; jonathan.robinson at afilias.info
Subject: Re: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] GNSO-ccNSO engagement in the Multi-stakeholder model

As a person who once worked in ccTLD while now in gTLD, I think what Erick and Martin were trying to argue is that the CWG has significantly neglected individual cc registry's comments. As they have described correctly, cc registries not only disagree with gs, but also disagree with each other. So they couldn't act collectively like the g registries have done (mostly via RySG). In practice, I guess not every single cc registry's comments were taken, some will complain they haven't been in engagement EQUALLY as the g registries.

Erick and Mrtin, please correct me if my understanding is wrong.

Jian

________________________________

From: Gomes, Chuck<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>
Date: 2015-06-02 05:06
To: Erick Iriarte<mailto:eiriarte at iriartelaw.com>
CC: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>; jonathan.robinson at afilias.info<mailto:jonathan.robinson at afilias.info>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] GNSO-ccNSO engagement in the Multi-stakeholder model
Erick,

I am pretty sure I understand everything you said except for your last paragraph: “In the case of gTLDs finally is based in a contract with ICANN, and IANA is a function. For the majority of ccTLDs the relation is with IANA (the old IANA), and with ICANN as “housing” of IANA. That difference need to be a priority in all the process.”  The first sentence is fine.  The second sentence I am less clear about.

If all you are saying is that the difference of contractual relationship vs. no contractual relationship needs to be a priority, I agree.  Throughout the CWG process, I have been under the impression that that difference has been emphasized over and over again and everyone seems to support that.  I think we all also understand the differences related to the involvement of governments for ccTLDs and that that varies by ccTLD.

What I don’t understand is where you think you and I are disagreeing.

Chuck

From: Erick Iriarte [mailto:eiriarte at iriartelaw.com]
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 9:36 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: 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

Hi

Balance is one of the words, the other is diversity, and with diversity i mean what exactly means for each ccTLD (with their local realities around the world) the relation with IANA now, and will be affected with a change in special in relation with their local community. (Remenber RC 1591

(…)
“2) These designated authorities are trustees for the delegated domain, and have a duty to serve the community.
The designated manager is the trustee of the top-level domain for both the nation, in the case of a country code, and the global Internet community.

(…)
6) For any transfer of the designated manager trusteeship from one organization to another, the higher-level domain manager (the IANA in the case of top-level domains) must receive communications from both the old organization and the new organization that assure the IANA that the transfer in mutually agreed, and that the new organization understands its responsibilities.”

gTLDs and ccTLDs are not only different, ccTLDs are different between each, and that means the “solution for IANA transition” need to recognized that difference and how will be affected.

In the case of gTLDs finally is based in a contract with ICANN, and IANA is a function. For the majority of ccTLDs the relation is with IANA (the old IANA), and with ICANN as “housing” of IANA. That difference need to be a priority in all the process.

Yours,

Erick

pd. I’am agree with Martin (this time :) ).

El 1/6/2015, a las 8:15, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> escribió:

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> [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

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<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/20150603/0c8cc893/attachment-0001.html>