[CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments
Gomes, Chuck
cgomes at verisign.com
Fri Jun 5 14:17:19 UTC 2015
The discussion about whether the ICANN Board should be allowed to initiate a SIFR has been very useful in my view. Based on all the points made so far, I am leaning toward not giving the ICANN Board the ability to initiate an SIFR and, considering where we are time-wise in terms of finalizing our proposal, I think we need to make a decision on this today if possible.
To bring all of this back into focus, the catalyst for this issue came from this DT-M recommendation: “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."*”
I suggest the following as response to AFRALO’s comment: “DT M carefully considered the suggestion to allow the PTI Board to initiate a Special IFR but decided to recommend that the CWG not support it. After additional and fairly extensive discussion, the CWG decided to support the DT-M recommendation, noting that the PTI Board could communicate any reasons it has for further escalation of a problem to the CSC, which could then consider whether to escalate the problem to the ccNSO and GNSO.”
Is this a reasonable response? Edits are welcome. But let’s try to resolve this today.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 8:11 AM
To: Martin Boyle; Greg Shatan; Staffan Jonson
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments
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<mailto: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:
the 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/d2679450/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list