[CWG-Stewardship] Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft

[Lindeberg, Elise]

Well - thanks for the work Martin :). I have been asking in the GAC on the latest development in the g ii, and I have to report that it is still some difficulties with the text (sorry for this  - we work in different time zones and I need to consult on this..)  There are still some major concerns about the use of the term "may" .

In short, it is problematic to state that 'Policy decisions for ccTLDs may be made locally through nationally agreed processes in accordance with national laws and in compliance with IETF technical standards - 'may be made locally' formulation was tried earlier (i.e. f(ii) in earlier drafts), and was rejected in the GAC Chair's letter of the 14th desember.

On my reading, this is a similar issue (different side of the same coin?) to the FOIWG issue, in that we don't want to inadvertently weaken the governmental role with regard to ccTLDs, and where that role is currently not clearly defined in existing policy.  In this regard, another problem with stepping back to a 'may' formulation is that the GAC made a strong statement on this in Singapore in the FOIWG context, with the support of a wide range of countries (communique text below):

*       The GAC welcomes the FOIWG's recognition that, consistent with the GAC's 2005 Principles, the ultimate authority on public policy issues relating to ccTLDs is the relevant government. As such, nothing in the FOIWG report should be read to limit or constrain applicable law and governmental decisions, or the IANA operator´s ability to act in line with a request made by the relevant government.


Again  - this is a very important issue for the GAC, So  - we have to find some new formulation here.

Elise




Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] På vegne av Martin Boyle
Sendt: 4. mars 2015 23:59
Til: CWG Stewardship
Emne: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft
Viktighet: Høy

Hi all,

And special thanks to Elise and Paul for their cooperation on g.ii (now 7.ii), Stephanie for some useful proposed wording for j (now 10), Maarten Simon for some comments and suggested edits and Erick for some interesting discussion on h.ii (now 8.ii).

The result is perhaps a slightly more complicated document that it was on Tuesday evening!

I propose that we look to:


·         Remove all the comments and accept all the editing that has not had any comment that is the side heading and paragraphs (using the new numbering) 2, 3, 5.i, 5.iv, 6.ii, 7 chapeau, 7.iii-vi, 8.i, 8.iii and 9.

·         See whether the suggested compromise on 7.ii is acceptable.

·         See whether the proposed text in 5.iii is acceptable.

·         In the light of Maarten's comment on 5.vi, check whether maintaining the current text (including removing the square brackets) is acceptable.

·         See whether 6.iii should be retained and whether there is consensus to remove the square brackets.

·         See if the edits proposed for 7.i are acceptable.

·         See if Stephanie's proposal for 10 is acceptable.

If we have time I'd like to at least ask Erick to introduce the alternative he has proposed for 8.ii.  However, it is not proving to be an easy discussion so I propose to take this discussion off line as there is unlikely to be any resolution in time for or during tomorrow's call.

Thanks and I look forward to a constructive discussion tomorrow.


Martin



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150305/37d7317c/attachment.html>