Bringing AoC Reviews into ICANN Bylaws, v4 reflecting Paris discussion
Today (17-Jul) we reviewed and revised the proposal to bring AoC Reviews into the ICANN Bylaws. By my notes, here are the changes we agreed today: Preference for option 2 on team composition, so removed 3-May proposal and Option 1. Allow ATRT to amend these reviews, too. Add 1 ICANN board member to each review team under option 2. Note that our 3-May draft had a board member on each team. Bruce Tonkin suggested requiring review teams to Prioritize their recommendations. We heard several objections to making that a requirement, so I added it as a suggestion: "The review team should attempt to assign priorities to its recommendations." Remaining challenges: How to give review team access to ICANN Internal documents, while preventing disclosure/publication of information that is sensitive, confidential, or proprietary? Do we impose sanctions for unauthorized disclosure? HELP NEEDED HERE. Steve Crocker recommended changing the AoC commitments for WHOIS/Directory Services. We heard some agreement with that idea, but strong cautions about attempting to drop WHOIS commitments as part of the transition. Instead, amendments to the WHOIS/Directory Services review could be recommended by the first post-transition ATRT. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206
For the record, when the AoC was presented to the ICANN board September 2009 we raised an immediate objection to the original text of the Whois review. We got pushback that the entire text had been negotiated and it would put at risk the adoption of the Affirmation of Commitments. We have been wrestling with this “detail” for six years. There is no reason to perpetuate inappropriate text. As I had said early in the process, I think in reference to the IANA contract, it is a misperception/misunderstanding to assume that the existing text is some sort of gold standard. There is LOT of experience with the relationship between the text in both the IANA contract and the AoC document and what’s needed in practice. We’re not trying to reduce our commitments or make major changes, but there is no reason to perpetuate non-sensical provisions and ignore the accumulated experience. Steve On Jul 17, 2015, at 10:40 AM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:
Today (17-Jul) we reviewed and revised the proposal to bring AoC Reviews into the ICANN Bylaws.
By my notes, here are the changes we agreed today:
Preference for option 2 on team composition, so removed 3-May proposal and Option 1.
Allow ATRT to amend these reviews, too.
Add 1 ICANN board member to each review team under option 2. Note that our 3-May draft had a board member on each team.
Bruce Tonkin suggested requiring review teams to Prioritize their recommendations. We heard several objections to making that a requirement, so I added it as a suggestion: "The review team should attempt to assign priorities to its recommendations."
Remaining challenges:
How to give review team access to ICANN Internal documents, while preventing disclosure/publication of information that is sensitive, confidential, or proprietary? Do we impose sanctions for unauthorized disclosure? HELP NEEDED HERE.
Steve Crocker recommended changing the AoC commitments for WHOIS/Directory Services. We heard some agreement with that idea, but strong cautions about attempting to drop WHOIS commitments as part of the transition. Instead, amendments to the WHOIS/Directory Services review could be recommended by the first post-transition ATRT.
— Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.703.615.6206
<2015-07-17 DRAFT FOR 2nd REPORT - AoC Reviews into Bylaws - V4.docx>_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
hi Steve The reason to perpetuate this language is the fact we are all under the gun to get WS1 sorted. So: the view today in the room was to put this on the agenda for the ATRT that will run next year, and to grant ATRTs the power to recommend changes to existing reviews. Hope this makes sense. cheers Jordan On 17 July 2015 at 17:16, Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com> wrote:
For the record, when the AoC was presented to the ICANN board September 2009 we raised an immediate objection to the original text of the Whois review. We got pushback that the entire text had been negotiated and it would put at risk the adoption of the Affirmation of Commitments. We have been wrestling with this “detail” for six years. There is no reason to perpetuate inappropriate text. As I had said early in the process, I think in reference to the IANA contract, it is a misperception/misunderstanding to assume that the existing text is some sort of gold standard. There is LOT of experience with the relationship between the text in both the IANA contract and the AoC document and what’s needed in practice.
We’re not trying to reduce our commitments or make major changes, but there is no reason to perpetuate non-sensical provisions and ignore the accumulated experience.
Steve
On Jul 17, 2015, at 10:40 AM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:
Today (17-Jul) we reviewed and revised the proposal to bring AoC Reviews into the ICANN Bylaws.
By my notes, here are the changes we agreed today:
Preference for option 2 on team composition, so removed 3-May proposal and Option 1.
Allow ATRT to *amend* these reviews, too.
Add 1 ICANN board member to each review team under option 2. Note that our 3-May draft had a board member on each team.
Bruce Tonkin suggested requiring review teams to *Prioritize* their recommendations. We heard several objections to making that a requirement, so I added it as a suggestion: "The review team should attempt to assign priorities to its recommendations."
Remaining challenges:
How to give review team access to ICANN Internal documents, while preventing disclosure/publication of information that is sensitive, confidential, or proprietary? Do we impose sanctions for unauthorized disclosure? HELP NEEDED HERE.
Steve Crocker recommended changing the AoC commitments for WHOIS/Directory Services. We heard some agreement with that idea, but strong cautions about attempting to drop WHOIS commitments as part of the transition. Instead, amendments to the WHOIS/Directory Services review could be recommended by the first post-transition ATRT.
— Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org <http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.703.615.6206
<2015-07-17 DRAFT FOR 2nd REPORT - AoC Reviews into Bylaws - V4.docx> _______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *
Hi, We have one ambiguity in documenting this decision. You write making this part of ATRT 2016. Others have written that it does not get done until the first ATRT of the new cycle once the Bylaws change. I think it should be done as part of next year's work if possible. In any case we need to clarify the timing. avri On 17-Jul-15 18:23, Jordan Carter wrote:
hi Steve
The reason to perpetuate this language is the fact we are all under the gun to get WS1 sorted.
So: the view today in the room was to put this on the agenda for the ATRT that will run next year, and to grant ATRTs the power to recommend changes to existing reviews.
Hope this makes sense.
cheers Jordan
On 17 July 2015 at 17:16, Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com <mailto:steve@shinkuro.com>> wrote:
For the record, when the AoC was presented to the ICANN board September 2009 we raised an immediate objection to the original text of the Whois review. We got pushback that the entire text had been negotiated and it would put at risk the adoption of the Affirmation of Commitments. We have been wrestling with this “detail” for six years. There is no reason to perpetuate inappropriate text. As I had said early in the process, I think in reference to the IANA contract, it is a misperception/misunderstanding to assume that the existing text is some sort of gold standard. There is LOT of experience with the relationship between the text in both the IANA contract and the AoC document and what’s needed in practice.
We’re not trying to reduce our commitments or make major changes, but there is no reason to perpetuate non-sensical provisions and ignore the accumulated experience.
Steve
On Jul 17, 2015, at 10:40 AM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote:
Today (17-Jul) we reviewed and revised the proposal to bring AoC Reviews into the ICANN Bylaws.
By my notes, here are the changes we agreed today:
Preference for option 2 on team composition, so removed 3-May proposal and Option 1.
Allow ATRT to _amend_ these reviews, too.
Add 1 ICANN board member to each review team under option 2. Note that our 3-May draft had a board member on each team.
Bruce Tonkin suggested requiring review teams to _Prioritize_ their recommendations. We heard several objections to making that a requirement, so I added it as a suggestion: "The review team should attempt to assign priorities to its recommendations."
Remaining challenges:
How to give review team access to ICANN Internal documents, while preventing disclosure/publication of information that is sensitive, confidential, or proprietary? Do we impose sanctions for unauthorized disclosure? HELP NEEDED HERE.
Steve Crocker recommended changing the AoC commitments for WHOIS/Directory Services. We heard some agreement with that idea, but strong cautions about attempting to drop WHOIS commitments as part of the transition. Instead, amendments to the WHOIS/Directory Services review could be recommended by the first post-transition ATRT.
— Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org <http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org <http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206 <tel:%2B1.703.615.6206>
<2015-07-17 DRAFT FOR 2nd REPORT - AoC Reviews into Bylaws - V4.docx>_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org <mailto:WP1@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org <mailto:WP1@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter
/A better world through a better Internet /
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On 17-Jul-15 18:23, Jordan Carter wrote:
The reason to perpetuate this language is the fact we are all under the gun to get WS1 sorted.
And like anything related to Whois or possible future directory serrvices, it will not be resolved quickly given the the angst that surrounds this subject. If I thought it could just be deleted and be done with it, I would probably be in favor. But I do not believe that can be done. It should not be too much of a problem if we can wait to do the next Whos review until we have finished the PDPs that are either in progress or about to start. Of course I do not know how we go about delaying a review with the concurrence of our AOC co-signatory, but that is a problem for a different venue. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I was unable to be on the call when this discussion took place. (I decided to grab 2 hours of sleep instead, between 5 and 7 am.) For the record, I'll state my strong objection to attempting to drop or change the WHOIS commitments in the AoC as part of the transition. This is certainly not necessary to the IANA Transition or to ensuring that future changes can take place. Allowing this to be a subject for the post-transition ATRT seems reasonable. Greg On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:
Today (17-Jul) we reviewed and revised the proposal to bring AoC Reviews into the ICANN Bylaws.
By my notes, here are the changes we agreed today:
Preference for option 2 on team composition, so removed 3-May proposal and Option 1.
Allow ATRT to *amend* these reviews, too.
Add 1 ICANN board member to each review team under option 2. Note that our 3-May draft had a board member on each team.
Bruce Tonkin suggested requiring review teams to *Prioritize* their recommendations. We heard several objections to making that a requirement, so I added it as a suggestion: "The review team should attempt to assign priorities to its recommendations."
Remaining challenges:
How to give review team access to ICANN Internal documents, while preventing disclosure/publication of information that is sensitive, confidential, or proprietary? Do we impose sanctions for unauthorized disclosure? HELP NEEDED HERE.
Steve Crocker recommended changing the AoC commitments for WHOIS/Directory Services. We heard some agreement with that idea, but strong cautions about attempting to drop WHOIS commitments as part of the transition. Instead, amendments to the WHOIS/Directory Services review could be recommended by the first post-transition ATRT.
— Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org <http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.703.615.6206
_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
participants (5)
-
Avri Doria -
Greg Shatan -
Jordan Carter -
Steve Crocker -
Steve DelBianco