[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