[CWG-Stewardship] Triggering of Special IFR

[Matthew Shears]

My understanding was the same as Chuck's.

Matthew

On 6/11/2015 11:53 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> In fact, my understanding is that the CSC cannot launch a Special IFR 
> but only escalates to the ccNSO and GNSO for that consideration.  
> Donna/Staffan – please correct me if I am wrong on that.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org 
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan 
> Robinson
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 3:45 AM
> *To:* 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond'; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Triggering of Special IFR
>
> Olivier,
>
> I agree with you understanding in the second instance i.e. as per 
> Annex F.
>
> " Following the exhaustion of the above escalation mechanisms, the 
> ccNSO and GNSO will be responsible for checking and reviewing 
> the outcome of the CSC process (as defined in Annex G), and the IANA 
> Problem Resolution Process (as defined in Annex J) and for determining 
> whether or not a Special IFR is necessary. After consideration, which 
> may include a public comment period and must include meaningful 
> consultation with other SO/ACs, the Special IFR could be triggered by 
> a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according 
> to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. "
>
> To me, this translates to: a special IFR can be launched by CSC *and* 
> GNSO *and* ccNSO agreeing that a special IFR needs to be launched. It 
> is impossible for the CSC *or* the GNSO *or* the ccNSO to launch a 
> special IFR singlehandedly.
>
> Jonathan
>
> *From:*Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl at gih.com]
> *Sent:* 11 June 2015 08:30
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Triggering of Special IFR
>
> Hello all
>
> looking at the slide deck for the presentation (downloadable from 
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778352 ), 
> page 12 , I raised a question on the first Webinar.
> The slide says: "Review cycles: 1st review to occur no more than 2 
> years post-transition; then every 5 years. Or by special request of 
> CSC, GNSO, or ccNSO (Special IFR)."
>
> I took up this sentence and asked: "A Special IFR can be launched by 
> CSC, GNSO, *or* ccNSO? I was under the impression that a Special IFR 
> can be launched by CSC, GNSO *and* ccNSO" only.
>
> I was told, in response, that the slide is correct, and an IFR can be 
> launched by the CSC, or ccNSO or GNSO.
>
> The *or* vs. *and* is very important.
>
> So I looked at the proposal again, Annex F.
>
> " Following the exhaustion of the above escalation mechanisms, the 
> ccNSO and GNSO will be responsible for checking and reviewing 
> the outcome of the CSC process (as defined in Annex G), and the IANA 
> Problem Resolution Process (as defined in Annex J) and for determining 
> whether or not a Special IFR is necessary. After consideration, which 
> may include a public comment period and must include meaningful 
> consultation with other SO/ACs, the Special IFR could be triggered by 
> a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according 
> to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. "
>
> To me, this translates to: a special IFR can be launched by CSC *and* 
> GNSO *and* ccNSO agreeing that a special IFR needs to be launched. It 
> is impossible for the CSC *or* the GNSO *or* the ccNSO to launch a 
> special IFR singlehandedly.
>
> So is the slide on page 12 and the response I was given on the First 
> Webinar right or wrong? This is a serious issue.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150611/9f4a2102/attachment.html>