[CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments

Fri Jun 5 11:00:30 UTC 2015

The rationale for giving ICANN (or PTI) the ability to initiate a SIFR would allude to some general principles of transparency (’everybody should be able to check everybody’). In my view the principles behind is an interesting discussion, but not very much more. The current Hybrid model and contract governance give ICANN a lot of power, the upper hand so to say. So according to proposal ICANN will already control IANA functions operations.
So who would ICANN scrutinize with its review power? Its own supporting organizations?  SO:s and AC:s? Most cc:s are not even contracted with ICANN, and have few plans to become. Or would ICANN need to review its own IANA operations with an external organization? The latter would to me indicate lack of control. Or dual representation by MS community.
So a practical answer is: It wouldn’t need to. And I see very few possibilities of change in this area.
So my answer is more along a pragmatic stream: Is this relevant for the CWG? Now? Do we really, really need to include this aspect in transition? This late? Are we limiting our deliberations to what is absolutely necessary for the transition, or are we – once the window of ooportunity is open- trying to make it a perfect world? I would say no to both.
Another answer relates to direct process: The need for a review is about accountability, so any power for ICANN to review itself should preferably be discussed by CCWG (WS2).

However what might be valid, is that ICG soon will have to handle up to three parallel mechanisms for review (one from each community within  CWG). Maybe we should remind them of the potential need to coordinate review mechanisms.

Staffan

With best regards
Staffan Jonson

Mr. Staffan Jonson, Senior Policy Adviser
.SE (The Internet Infrastructure foundation)

BOX 7399 | SE-103 91 STOCKHOLM | SWEDEN
Direct: +46 8 452 35 74 | SMS: +46 73 317 39 67
staffan.jonson at iis.se | www.iis.se/en

Från: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] För Martin Boyle
Skickat: den 5 juni 2015 12:01
Till: Matthew Shears; Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Ämne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments

I struggle to imagine why the ICANN Board (any more than the PTI Board) would want to initiate an SIFR, in particular without the support of the community.  Worse, I would feel that there would be a “cunning plan” somewhere behind such a decision and that leaves me seriously questioning why we would want this process to be triggered in such a way.  No support for an SIFR, no overriding ICANN (or PTI) Board to ignore interests of the community.
If someone can see possible reasons, I’d like to hear them.  Then any trigger route could be defined (and limited) more carefully.

Martin

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears
Sent: 05 June 2015 06:17
To: Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments

But what would the thresholds be?  And, currently an SIFR comes as a result of other mechanisms being exhausted as well as the IANA probems resolution process.

The Special IFR would be triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority.

Would we require a supermajority of only the Board, or in addition to the ccNSO and GNSO.  And as a result of the mechanisms being exhausted?  I would assume so.

Matthew
On 6/5/2015 4:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

I can't

--MM

-----Original Message-----

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-

bounces at icann.org<mailto:bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck

Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 5:02 PM

To: avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>; cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>

Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public

comments

Good catch Avri and good question. Can anyone think of a  reason why the

ICANN Board should not be able to request an SIFR?

Chuck

-----Original Message-----

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-

bounces at icann.org<mailto:bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria

Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:39 PM

To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>

Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public

comments

Hi,

I am part of DT-M and partly responsible for this.

But.  It has a cost, which I did mention on the DT-M list:

There is currently no mechanism defined for the Board to initiate a SIFR.

Should there be?

avri

On 04-Jun-15 16:10, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

Here is DT-M's final proposed response to comment review tool item #

246 regarding AFRALO's suggestion that the PTI Board be allowed to

initiate a SIFR directly:  *"DT M carefully considered the

recommendation to allow the PTI Board to initiate a Special IFR but

decided against that while at the same time noting that the PTI Board

could request that the ICANN Board consider doing so."*

If there are any questions, please let me know.

Chuck

          "This message (including any attachments) is intended only

          for the use of the individual or entity to which it is

          addressed, and may contain information that is non-public,

          proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from

          disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as

          attorney work product. If you are not the intended

          recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,

          dissemination, distribution, or copying of this

          communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received

          this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete

          this message immediately."

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

---

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

--

Matthew Shears

Global Internet Policy and Human Rights

Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)

+ 44 (0)771 247 2987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150605/c5a67eb4/attachment-0001.html>