[CWG-Stewardship] Principles Document

Wed Mar 18 08:01:13 UTC 2015

Dear Martin:

I hesitate to add to this rather odd discussion, but since we are here:

-	the IANA staff are - we are told - separated from the rest of ICANN. 
	Thus it is a finite, identifiable number of people.

-	Consequently, 'group' is too vague and open a concept in this case.

-	'Unit' is acceptable. Surprisingly, the contents of an unit may be plural, but always finite.
	e.g. the divisions of a Directorate in the EC are 'Units'.

-	I have no objection to 'entity' because I afford it a broader meaning than others do.

Enjoy!

CW

On 17 Mar 2015, at 22:55, "Eduardo Diaz, PE" <eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com> wrote:

> What about using "group of people" instead  of just "group" or entity. 
> 
> -ed
> 
> Please pardon any errors. I am sending this from my IPhone and have big fingers. 
> 
> On Mar 17, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:
> 
>> I’d be ok with either group of unit if people find entity confusing.  While not a fan of getting my definitions from Wikipedia I note that it is “An entity is something that exists in itself, actually or potentially, concretely or abstractly, physically or not. It need not be of material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities.”  I would see “unit” as confusing and “group” likewise, but the important idea is that “[whatever we call] performs the service.”
>>  
>> So could anyone who objects to “The term "IANA Functions Operator" means the unit that performs the service.”
>>  
>> Martin
>>  
>> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com] 
>> Sent: 17 March 2015 17:44
>> To: Martin Boyle
>> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles Document
>>  
>> 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
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150318/23ab7a85/attachment-0001.html>