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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Fri Jun 5 11:48:28 UTC 2015


I see this as a community power. Frankly, the Board could initiate an RFP
or other change to IANA functions operations without a SIFR.

Greg

On Friday, June 5, 2015, Staffan Jonson <staffan.jonson at iis.se> wrote:

> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','staffan.jonson at iis.se');> | www.iis.se/en
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Från:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org');>
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org');> [
> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship');>-
>
> bounces at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bounces at icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
>
> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 5:02 PM
>
> To: avri at acm.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri at acm.org');>; cwg-stewardship at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship');>-
>
> bounces at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bounces at icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:39 PM
>
> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship at icann.org');>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship at icann.org');>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/20150605/0913a3a5/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list