[CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Fri Jun 5 05:59:19 UTC 2015

Hello all,

I was unfortunately unable to attend the last CWG call due to
commitments at EuroDIG but have reviewed the transcript of the call and
have a question regarding the escalation. As Alan voiced it clearly on
the call, the ALAC has concerns about the multistakeholder component of
the escalation, has doubts that the GNSO and ccNSO are balanced
multistakeholder groups - and has concerns that with the IANA Function's
main goals being to operate a stable Internet, the very Advisory Group
that is concerned with Stability of the Domain Name System is not
explicitly included in the escalation process.

In order to clear any misunderstanding and in order to avoid us all
driving in the wrong direction and potentially committing a faux-pas
that could cast doubt over the multistakeholder element of the
escalation process, could someone please clearly summarise the
escalation, from the point a problem takes place, through its escalation
from the CSC all the way to when it reaches the SCWG, and please
identify the make-up of each of the groups along the way? In order to
evaluate the multistakeholder element, we need to look at the overall
picture, not each of the small groups or committees in isolation.

As far as the GNSO engaging in more than policy work, we may have
stumbled on an anomaly. Agreed, the GNSO has and indeed should comment
on matters that affect it directly, such as the Budget. That said
reading Article X of the ICANN Bylaws, it is very clear indeed that the
GNSO is a policy-development body. Its voting thresholds are quite
carefully fleshed out and all relate to a PDP except in the creationg of
an Issues Report. It is therefore clear that if the GNSO was to assume a
responsibility in the IANA escalation process, this would require Bylaw

As far as the GNSO being multistakeholder, it needs to be recognised
that the multistakeholder aspect of the GNSO is highly imbalanced, with
two thirds of its Council being composed of Private Sector and with no
specific Technical Community nor Governments being represented.
Furthermore, there are absolutely no checks and balances for
Geographical balance and the GNSO Council is therefore highly biased in
its composition towards North America and Western Europe. So if we need
a multistakeholder committee in the critical path of the escalation,
this is not it.

I also do not agree with the notion that a multistakeholder consultation
(an open public comment period), but the critical path on the escalation
not including a full multistakeholder Committee, is actually a
multistakeholder process. This is akin to saying the ITU - which makes
all its decisions in a multilateral fashion, is multistakeholder because
it includes an open comment period where stakeholders other than
Governments are allowed to speak. Whenever a complete stakeholder
category can be completely ignored at will by other stakeholders, this
is not a multistakeholder model. Balance means having the right to vote,
not just comment.

I look forward to your responses.

Kindest regards,


More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list