[CWG-Stewardship] Principles: revised draft 9 March

[John Poole]

Martin:
I know this has been raised before but I am still unsure of your
terminology--please define "IANA Functions Operator" which appears multiple
times in various contexts in the draft of Principles. Are you referring
only to the IANA department within ICANN, or are you referring to ICANN?
ICANN is referred to generally as the "IANA Functions Operator" in NTIA and
ICANN and other documents
<https://www.google.com/search?q=IANA+functions+operator>. The draft
Principles seem to use the term in places as referring to ICANN and other
places as referring only to the IANA department within ICANN--*e.g.*, in 5
iii: "... policy processes should be independent of the IANA Functions
Operator ..."* i.e.,* policy processes should be independent of ICANN? Then
who is making policy? Could you please clarify?
Best regards,
John Poole

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
wrote:

>  Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
> I attach a revised draft of the principles document based on our calls on
> 3 & 5 March.  I believe we have a text that is pretty much in its final
> form, with only one outstanding issue.
>
>
>
> Looking at the remaining highlighted changes:
>
>
>
> 5.ii & iii:  These are mainly editorial and have been discussed without
> opposition on recent calls.
>
>
>
> 5.iv footnote:  We had comments about the meaning of consensus in the
> footnote.  I do not think that defining consensus is in the remit of this
> document, but is part of the considerations of any entity that we
> establish.  Hence I have added, “Conditions for consensus will need to be
> agreed appropriate for the group” to make this clear.
>
>
>
> 5.vi: As I said when I flagged this paragraph as of concern, I am
> inherently uneasy about a principle that is essentially optional and where
> it might need to be re-written because of subsequent choices that we make.
> Either it is a principle or it isn’t.  I believe that we need to understand
> the implications of what we are trying to say, so I am taking editor’s
> right to propose a new formulation that should be independent of subsequent
> decisions.
>
>
>
> 6.ii:  Was agreed as not being a principle last week.
>
>
>
> 7.i:  Editing agreed last week.
>
>
>
> 7.ii:  We took this off-line.  There has been some progress in discussions
> with Paul and Elise.  I have made a drafting proposal to both for wording
> that tries to take into account the concerns they have expressed.  However,
> this paragraph needs to be held in abeyance until we have heard the views
> of both.
>
>
>
> 8.ii:  In discussion with Erick, we have identified a compromise that
> moves away from saying anything about the policy authority and who it might
> or might not be.  The proposed wording (“In particular, the IANA functions
> operator should not impose any additional requirements on the registry
> unless they are directly and demonstrably linked to global security,
> stability and resilience of the DNS.”) turns this around to prevent the
> IANA functions operator making unilateral decisions that impact the ccTLD
> except in (rare) cases of global security, stability and resilience.  *Given
> the delicate balance behind this text, I hope that others will find this
> formulation acceptable* and I thank Erick for his support in finding this
> compromise.
>
>
>
> 9.i:  A minor point here that was discussed last week.  The wording is not
> necessary to the text, but does make it clearer that i. is about
> separability now and iii. says we would need to include separability for
> all future IANA functions operators.
>
>
>
> 10:  A reasonable edit proposed by Mary last week:  no objections have
> been raised.
>
>
>
> Hence I would hold 5.ii-iv, 6.ii, 7.i, 9.i and 10 to be agreed text if
> there are no objections.
>
>
>
> 5.iv:  I suggest we use the new wording unless there is significant
> opposition.
>
>
>
> 7.ii:  This has to stay in abeyance subject to agreement by Elise (in
> discussion with the GAC) and by Paul Kane.
>
>
>
> 8.ii:  Again I suggest we use the proposed wording unless there is
> significant opposition.
>
>
>
> I look forward to comments on this approach, and please do flag early any
> difficulties you might have with any of the proposals.
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150309/de5cc5bb/attachment.html>