[CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Fri Jun 5 20:24:24 UTC 2015
Hi,
The answer might be as simple as crafting language in the bylaws
defining the IFR, SIFR & SCWG that empowers the Board to kick off a SIFR
- as the ability to kick off a review seems a reasonable activity for
the Board, but prohibits them from taking further action without the
recommendations of an SIFR and/or SCWG.
avri
On 05-Jun-15 15:27, Greg Shatan wrote:
> I think that unless we prohibit it, it is an inherent right of the
> Board (and management) to explore and potentially adopt other methods
> and/or providers for carrying out ICANN's responsibilities relating to
> the IANA Functions. It may be as simple as some small (in size, not
> in effect) drafting fixes that make it clear that this is the only
> path to explore or adopt such changes.
>
> Right now it appears highly unlikely that the Board and management
> would ever want to explore a radical change in how the IANA Functions
> are carried out relative to ICANN. Indeed, the emphasis has been on
> maintaining the status quo (albeit without the NTIA's involvement).
> Indeed, ICANN's ultimate responsibility for the IANA Functions is a
> core value in the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, so completely
> exiting the "IANA Functions business" at all levels would require
> serious changes in governance documents, etc., etc., which would run
> up against the powers relating to changing bylaws that the CCWG
> contemplates.
>
> All that said, off the top of my head, I can't recall any formal
> limitation on ICANN's ability to exercise its business judgment with
> regard to making major changes in this area, short of a complete
> exit. Maybe there are some existing limitations that would apply, and
> I'm not thinking it through. (For instance, would such a potential
> change trigger a PDP? Would such a change even be a policy decision?)
> There may be practical limitations -- imagine the uproar if a
> unilateral, top-down decision was taken to outsource the IANA
> Functions to the Root Zone Management Company
> (http://www.rootzonemanagement.com.au/about.htm). But an "uproar" is
> not an enforceable right or prohibition.
>
> So I would agree that this is a "hole" or at least an unanticipated
> angle on this issue.
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com
> <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:
>
> I am inclined to agree with this: " I do not think that an RFP
> should be initiated without an SIFR & SCWG."
>
> 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:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 11:51 AM
> 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,
>
> That is a fascinating question and perhaps a hole in the
> solution. I do not think that an RFP should be initiated without
> an SIFR & SCWG. I have no real issue with the Board, or even the
> members if we have members, initiating a SIFR if they see problems
> no one else does.
> Perhaps this is the catch all for the wider community issue that
> some claim are not included.
>
> But to have them just decide on their own, for commercial or
> 'profitability' reasons perhaps, without community involvement
> seems very inappropriate.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 05-Jun-15 07:53, Matthew Shears wrote:
> > 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>
> >> <mailto: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 <tel:%2B46%208%20452%2035%2074> |
> SMS: +46 73 317 39 67 <tel:%2B46%2073%20317%2039%2067>
> >>
> >> staffan.jonson at iis.se <mailto:staffan.jonson at iis.se>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','staffan.jonson at iis.se
> <mailto:staffan.jonson at iis.se>');> |
> >> www.iis.se/en <http://www.iis.se/en> <http://www.iis.se/en>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *Från:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
> >>
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>');>
> >> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
> >>
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <mailto: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>
> >>
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>');>
> >> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
> >>
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>');>
> >> [mailto:cwg-stewardship <mailto:cwg-stewardship>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship');>-
> >>
> >> bounces at icann.org <mailto:bounces at icann.org>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>');>;
> >> cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>');>
> >> [mailto:cwg-stewardship <mailto:cwg-stewardship>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship');>-
> >>
> >> bounces at icann.org <mailto:bounces at icann.org>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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>
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <tel:%2B%2044%20%280%29771%20247%202987>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Matthew Shears
> > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy &
> > Technology (CDT)
> > + 44 (0)771 247 2987 <tel:%2B%2044%20%280%29771%20247%202987>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list