[CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process
cgomes at verisign.com
Fri Jun 5 17:04:26 UTC 2015
Very good question Olivier. It would go to the Council but the Council would be responsible we responsible for involving the full community. The Council could decide to form a WG and if time was limited, the Policy & Implementation WG has recommended some new processes that might be a little faster than a PDP.
From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl at gih.com]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 12:36 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process
apologies for the brevity as I only have a few minutes.
Thanks for your explanation, I think you have put your finger on exactly the question: when proposing the escalation will go to the GNSO, would it be the GNSO Council, or would it be a GNSO working group? Very different indeed.
On 05/06/2015 17:49, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> I want to respond to just the following paragraph of your message:
> " 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."
> In my opinion you are doing what many often do and that is equating the GNSO to the GNSO Council. In fact you even mention the Council. It is critical to recognize the following about the GNSO and the GNSO Council:
> 1. The majority of what goes on in the GNSO does not happen on the Council.
> 2. The Council is simply the management body of the GNSO; it is not where the work happens.
> 3. The work of the GNSO happens in working groups that are completely open to everyone and are not governed by the rules that determine the makeup of the Council.
> 4. In the end of a process, the Council's role is simply to confirm that WG guidelines were followed including that best efforts were made to involve all impacted parties and that everyone was given the opportunity to participate.
> To claim that " the GNSO is highly imbalanced " is essentially to say that the design of WGs is imbalanced. If you believe that, I ask you to explain to me how that is the case so it can be corrected.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 1:59 AM
> 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,
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
More information about the CWG-Stewardship