[CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process

Sun Jun 7 21:34:55 UTC 2015

Chuck, Allan  - thanks for your comments :)

Chuck, to your questions: 

1. You say:" timely and proper PTI  implementation of the practical outcome of policy set by ICANN community is of high interest and importance to many others that the ccTLDs and gTLD's."  Can you give an example of what kind of policy related to IANA services that would be of high interest to other community members and not also ccTLD and gTLD registries? 

As stated,  -this might be theoretical, and I will guess that in most scenarios registries and the rest of the community would agree on what needs to be escalated,   but Allan's comment is  to the point. In the big picture the whole community have a high interest in the PTI daily deliverables, and perspective and priorities might be different in  different communities  and also between registries. Some might say that this diversity should be reflected also in the ability to escalate to a special IFR,  after all - different perspective and roles in the Multistakeholder community is the reason for broad community representation in the periodic IFR. 

2. As proposed now the CSC can escalate performance problems to the ccNSO & GNSO.  Are you thinking that there should be some other way to escalate problems to the ccNSO and GNSO besides through the CSC?

No - I wasn't indicating or thinking of any other escalation process between CSC and ccNSO and GNSO. My comment was about other communities maybe questioning that there is no other way to request a special IFR other than through ccNSO/ GNSO process.

-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] På vegne av Gomes, Chuck
Sendt: 5. juni 2015 20:38
Til: Alan Greenberg; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process

Alan,

It's very simple: practicality, functionality and efficiency.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 1:29 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process

Chuck, I can't answer on behalf of Olivier, but will on my own behalf.

WGs explicitly do not limit participation (and the equivalent of voting - that is, being an equal player in reaching consensus). 
Deliberations of the GNSO do NOT have that.

I fully understand that the GNSO is not the GNSO Council, just as At-Large is not the ALAC, but in both cases, it is the GNSO Council and the ALAC that makes statements and recommendations on behalf of the larger body.

In answer to a question you posed to Elise - "Can you give an example of what kind of policy related to IANA services that would be of high interest to other community members and not also ccTLD and gTLD registries?", I will note that perhaps the Registries will always have the same concerns as others. Even if that were the case, as an open transparent organization, we should not presume that there will ALWAYS be full synergy between registries and the rest of the community. The optics of it are all wrong. I instead ask the opposite question. If you believe that there is a large degree of synergy between registries and the rest of the community, why NOT allow us to all participate. What are we protecting against here?

Alan

At 05/06/2015 10:49 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>Olivier,
>
>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.
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org 
>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ 
>Crepin-Leblond
>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,
>
>Olivier
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>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

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship