[CWG-Stewardship] Principles Document

[Greg Shatan]

Martin,

Congratulations on getting us close to done on the Principles.

As I read footnote 1, it is now clear that "IANA Functions Operator" refers
to the entire entity that provides the service (currently ICANN) and not to
any smaller unit within the entity.

I will look forward to hearing about the issues on 7.ii, and particularly
what is wrong with respecting national laws, processes and decisions (or
what caveats need to be applied to that to protect certain interests within
the cc community).

Greg

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
wrote:

>  Dear all,
>
>
>
> Following last week’s call, I have discussed outstanding issues with those
> parties who had raised concerns about different parts of the text.  I am
> grateful to them for their understanding and willingness to look for
> solutions and I am pleased to note that we have a near consensus document
> in the attached.
>
>
>
> There have been a number of small edits made in response to Andrew
> Sullivan’s comments seeking to clarify the wording.  These are in the
> heading and paragraphs 4, 5.iv & the second sentence of paragraph 7.ii.
>
>
>
> On the more difficult issues:
>
> ·         Seun has agreed to a revised (and simpler) text for footnote 1
> (paragraph 5.2):  “The term IANA functions operator refers to the entity
> that provides the service.”  This replaces the text proposed for the 12
> March call, “The term IANA functions operator refers to the entity that
> provides the service, independent of the organisation that hosts it,
> currently ICANN.”
>
> ·         Mary has agreed to drop her proposal in paragraph 10, to
> replace “must” by “should”.  This returns us to the original text of,
> “Multistakeholderism: any proposal must foster multi-stakeholder
> participation in the future oversight of the IANA functions.”
>
>
>
> The outstanding point is on the first sentence of paragraph 7.ii.  Elise
> Lindeberg has consulted within the GAC and proposed the text included in
> this current draft.  Milton Mueller and Andrew Sullivan have both accepted
> this wording, but Paul Kane has rejected it.  He has been invited to
> consider an alternative that he could work with.
>
>
>
> I’m afraid I will be a little late joining the call on Tuesday, but I hope
> we will be able to use the call to finalise the text.
>
>
>
> 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/20150316/a0619ab9/attachment.html>