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

[Gomes, Chuck]

Kurt - Why did you suggest the following language in h.iii: "No additional requirements for prompt delivery of IANA services should be imposed unless they are directly and demonstrably linked to global security, stability and resilience of the DNS."  Shouldn't that be considered by the applicable design team.  For example, it might be helpful to consider an expedited procedure in certain cases where a TLD needs to be re-delegated to minimize the impact of downtime for registrants in the TLD.  For this example, would that be a stability issue?  If so, the language might be okay.  Regardless, it seems to me that the design team should consider this before making it a principle.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Maarten Simon
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 7:45 AM
To: 'Martin Boyle'; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft

Hi Martin,

Hereby a few comments/suggestions.

Best,

Martin

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle
Sent: woensdag 4 maart 2015 12:44
To: Duchesneau, Stephanie; cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft
Importance: High

Thanks Stephanie,

This looks good to me in that I think it reflects the original intention of the reference, but with clearer focus.  I'd like to hear what others think.

All,

I'd appreciate any additional comments on the draft by 18.00 UTC so that I can circulate a new version for tomorrow's call, when I also hope to have a compromise wording on section g.ii.

(By the way:  would anyone have any objections to me changing the paragraph style to number/letter or number/Roman numeral?  Paragraphs marked i.i look rather odd as Olivier pointed out last night!)

Cheers

Martin



From: Duchesneau, Stephanie [mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau at neustar.us]
Sent: 03 March 2015 19:15
To: Martin Boyle; cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft

Hi Martin and all,

Here is my suggested language revision from today's call.

Stephanie
Stephanie Duchesneau
Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040  Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
________________________________
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:09 AM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft

Colleagues,

My apologies, but following the Christmas break I failed to progress this discussion.

I now attach a revised draft, still with a major outstanding issue in g. (page 2).

There are two variants for g.ii.  One simply reduces the previous paragraph to read "For ccTLDs, respect national sovereignty;" at the request of the GAC.  The other is more closely based on, but shortens, the previous text:  "For ccTLDs, policy decisions may be made locally through nationally agreed processes in accordance with national laws and in compliance with IETF technical standards.  Post transition of the IANA function nothing will be done by ICANN/IANA to impact the stable operation of ccTLD Registries and gTLD Registries."

The draft contains a number of marked up edits from previous discussions that seem to have general agreement.  For the text redlines:


1.       I have deleted the section heading "Introduction":  there are no other section headings, so this appears to be superfluous.


2.       Principles b. and c. (previously sub-clauses to the heading on security, stability and resilience) are now stand-alone at the request of the GAC.



3.       Accountability & transparency (e.):



a.       Paragraph i:  two edits that appear to have general agreement.


b.      Paragraph ii:  a new edit to correct the text.  The new version amends the text to reflect the sub-heading.  The old version put it the other way around.



c.       Paragraph iv:  Footnote on capture added as requested courtesy of Alan Greenberg & Milton Mueller.



d.      Paragraph vi:  While I think we all agree on the need for some form of appeals process, there is still some debate as to where that should lie.  So for example, the appeals process might well not be designed by the CWG and might be the responsibility of the CCWG.  For ccTLDs, it might mean that a third party might have a say over a national decision on a ccTLD.  I flag this in case further thought is needed in the light of discussion over the last few days.



4.       Service levels (f.):


a.       Paragraph ii:  I think the majority view is that automation should only be for routine functions (and not for controversial or subjective decisions such as on redelegations).


b.      Paragraph iii:  Previously a stand-alone point.


5.       Policy based (g):  other than some minor editing, there are two alternatives for g.ii. as noted above.  I would note that there was no support in our last discussion to retain g.vi. (require bottom-up modalities) as this is treated elsewhere (in particular in the chapeau text to g.).


6.       Diversity of customers (h.):  some (I hope) minor and uncontroversial edits in the chapeau and in i. and ii.  The text in paragraph iii was generally agreed.



7.       Separability:  modifications to i.i. and i.iii generally agreed in the last discussion.



8.       Multi-stakeholder principle paragraph j:  generally agreed in the last discussion subject to concerns about wording (the previous text appeared to recommend direct involvement in the management of the IANA function).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150306/3fb8e7fc/attachment-0001.html>