[CWG-Stewardship] Principles: revised draft 9 March

Tue Mar 10 17:16:25 UTC 2015

Hi,

While i have no major objection to this, I am not sure that description is
correct. ICANN is the operator of IANA simple, so I don't think an attempt
to describe IANA operator in the proposed manner is adequate.(it's like
saying sidely) However perhaps it can be used for the purpose of the
document only. So I propose the following:

"For the purpose of this document, the term IANA functions operator refers
to the entity that provides the service.  It is part of the organisation
that hosts the function, currently ICANN.”

Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.

I have no objection to doing this – the wording is fine for me.  The first
use of the term is in 5.ii, so I will add the footnote there for the next
revision:  I’d suggest, “The term IANA functions operator refers to the
entity organisational structure that provides the service.  It is
independent of the organisation that hosts the operator, currently ICANN.”

But I’m more than happy to hear alternatives.

Martin

*From:* john at expri.com [mailto:john at expri.com] *On Behalf Of *John Poole
*Sent:* 09 March 2015 22:51
*To:* Milton L Mueller
*Cc:* Martin Boyle; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles: revised draft 9 March

Milton,
Your definition is fine so long as that is specific definition is added to
the document (even as a footnote). The term is widely used to refer to
ICANN generally, in NTIA, ICANN, and other documents, and I do not want
confusion in the future, either by the CWG or others who may later read
this.

Best regards,

John Poole

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

I thought we had agreed long ago that all references to the IANA functions
operator were to the IANA functions operator per se, and not to ICANN,
because it cannot and should not be assumed that ICANN will always be the
IANA functions operator.

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *John Poole
*Sent:* Monday, March 9, 2015 4:30 PM
*To:* Martin Boyle
*Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles: revised draft 9 March

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

_______________________________________________
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/20150310/280d11fb/attachment-0001.html>