[CWG-Stewardship] Principles Document

[Greg Shatan]

Martin,

I've more or less responded to your first point elsewhere, and won't beat a
dead horse.  I think we've agreed to change "group" to "unit" but otherwise
to accept the footnote as is, though Seun disagrees.

On the second point, I expected that this was the issue, but I'm glad to
see it succinctly and explicitly expressed.

Greg

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
wrote:

>  Thanks Greg.
>
>
>
> I guess the footnote could be read as implying the IANA functions operator
> is the whole organisation, although in that case I personally would have
> gone for the word organisation.  The terminology, “IANA functions operator”
> has to cope with the concept that it is a small team in a big organisation
> (currently as a team in the Global Domains Division of ICANN) through to it
> being structurally separated to an entity as yet unknown but which might be
> entirely independent of any other body – say * Trotters Independent
> Traders (New York, Paris, Peckham)*.  Hence the choice of the word
> “entity.”
>
>
>
> However, interpreting the IANA functions operator as ICANN does not make
> sense when read in 9.i:  “To separate ICANN from the current operator (i.e.
> ICANN) if warranted and in line with agreed processes” does not make
> sense.  “To separate the IANA Functions from the current operator (i.e.
> ICANN) if warranted and in line with agreed processes” does.
>
>
>
> I am not a lawyer (and am quite content with my innocence) and this is not
> a legal document, but something to help us think about what we want from
> the transition.
>
>
>
> Turning to your other point:  there might be ccTLDs that do not fall under
> the jurisdiction of the country or territory they serve.  (For example,
> some countries are really small and isolated and could not establish a
> registry on their mainland.)  So the question might be, whose national
> laws, processes and decisions?  The problem is that one size does not fit
> all, and any formulation is likely to fall foul of an exception.  Perhaps
> we’ll find the elusive magic wording this evening!  But as you say, we
> really can’t be that far away if everyone continues to show good will in
> working to the right wording for everyone.
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 16 March 2015 23:02
> *To:* Martin Boyle
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles Document
>
>
>
> 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/20150317/4a8704a9/attachment.html>