[CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Fri Jun 5 21:01:42 UTC 2015
Yes, the right to call for an RFP does not also mean that it has the unilateral right to switch providers.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, June 5, 2015 4:24 PM
> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public
> comments
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list