[CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process

Martin Boyle Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk
Fri Jun 5 07:27:54 UTC 2015

Hi Olivier,

I think there's a bit of confusion creeping in here, so I wonder whether I could give an interpretation of what I see as the single case of the escalation from the CSC.  Remember that this is *only* to do with issues related to the mandate of the CSC - ie to the performance of the service.

* CSC seeks to get the PTI to remedy service-level shortfalls.  This could include reference to the PTI Board or to the ICANN CEO given that the issue might be that the PTI is not receiving necessary resources to address issues.

* Still no improvements:  CSC raises the issue with the GNSO and ccNSO.  This is essentially a "sanity check."  In its discussions, DT-C was concerned that (perhaps as few as) three people could make a significant decision.  By their role, CSC members will be very close to the issue.  The GNSO and ccNSO role is to get a clear understanding of the issue and its impact on the direct customers.

* If the ccNSO & GNSO agree that the issue is serious and systemic, they will propose (or endorse the CSC recommendation for) a special IFR.  At this stage, this process goes to a public comment and multi-stakeholder engagement process.

So (and again I stress that this is an escalation triggered by a CSC recommendation) the role of the GNSO and ccNSO is to validate the views of the customer community.  Once this has been done, the process becomes the full multi-stakeholder process.  As this will be a process massively expensive on volunteers' time, it would be silly to launch a process on performance issues if the customer community did not see any strong reason to go through this process.

Hope this helps


-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
Sent: 05 June 2015 08:59
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process

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 Changes.

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,

CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list