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

Matthew Shears mshears at cdt.org
Fri Jun 5 12:10:54 UTC 2015


Martin - I completely agree - and wondering the same - my question was 
to more to whether or not we have stated this power anywhere - I don't 
recall (and don't think so).

On 6/5/2015 8:08 AM, Martin Boyle wrote:
>
> I’m missing something, Matthew.
>
> I’d have issues with ICANN launching an RfP without some sort of 
> community endorsement.  After all, ICANN becomes the stewardship home 
> of a community resource because it brings in the multi-stakeholder 
> community.
>
> Why might ICANN want to launch an RfP?  If there are good reasons, 
> then we would need to write around this (these) particular reason(s).  
> As a conspiracy theorist, I need convincing that this is a benign power.
>
> Martin
>
> *From:*Matthew Shears [mailto:mshears at cdt.org]
> *Sent:* 05 June 2015 14:54
> *To:* Greg Shatan; Staffan Jonson
> *Cc:* Martin Boyle; Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding 
> public comments
>
> I agree Greg and have similar concerns to Staffan and Martin.  But on 
> your second point have we specified how the board would do this:
>
> t/he Board could initiate an RFP or other change to IANA functions 
> operations without a SIFR/
>
> Matthew
>
> On 6/5/2015 12:48 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>
>     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
>     <mailto: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 <http://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
>
>
>
> -- 
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 (0)771 247 2987

-- 
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/20150605/886f1bc9/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list