[CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process

Milton L Mueller mueller at syr.edu
Fri Jun 5 09:06:10 UTC 2015

Right. The review by GNSO and ccNSO is just a check, a small step in a larger process. GNSO includes a broad range of user  and technical interests and ccNSO does include many governments in their capacity as TLD operators. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle
> Sent: Friday, June 5, 2015 3:28 AM
> To: Olivier Crepin-Leblond; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process
> 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
> Martin
> -----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,
> Olivier
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list