The whois/RDS-RT bylaw vs. current activities
Hi, In thinking about the way the bylaws require the regular RTs and how those might interact with other processes, I'm wondering whether we think it would be consistent with the report to say that, if a PDP is going on about any topic that is subject to regular RT, then the PDP can be counted as fulfilling the purposes of the RT? It seems to me that this is consistent with the point of the regular RT requirement (i.e. ensuring that the review happens in a timely way) without entailing that we waste time, money, and energy in multiple, potentially conflicting efforts on the same topic. Have I missed something? Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Speaking for myself, without benefit of coordination with my colleagues on the ICANN Board or with staff, my quick reaction is a PDP is not a substitute for a review. I do believe we have to find a way to be more efficient and coordinated when we have multiple interacting processes, and collection of whois and directory services activities is probably the premier example at the moment. We don’t have a solution at the moment, but I don’t think equating a PDP with a review is the right approach. In principle, reviews start from a neutral position and assess the situation. In contrast, policy development processes start with the premise that a policy is needed and the bulk of the activity during a PDP is the creation and shaping of that policy. Reviews can lead to PDPs, but they’re not interchangeable. Steve
On Apr 28, 2016, at 9:12 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
In thinking about the way the bylaws require the regular RTs and how those might interact with other processes, I'm wondering whether we think it would be consistent with the report to say that, if a PDP is going on about any topic that is subject to regular RT, then the PDP can be counted as fulfilling the purposes of the RT?
It seems to me that this is consistent with the point of the regular RT requirement (i.e. ensuring that the review happens in a timely way) without entailing that we waste time, money, and energy in multiple, potentially conflicting efforts on the same topic.
Have I missed something?
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 09:55:06AM -0400, Steve Crocker wrote:
Speaking for myself, without benefit of coordination with my colleagues on the ICANN Board or with staff, my quick reaction is a PDP is not a substitute for a review.
Ok (and I find I agree with your argument about the starting point of RT vs. PDP). I believe quite strongly that we must follow the proposal closely, and with the above conclusion it seems likely that an RT is going to be needed for RDS as soon as the new bylaws come into effect. Given the ongoing PDP, that seems unfortunate, but it might just be a consequence that we have to accept given the state we're in (and the dictates of the calendar). I do _not_ think it would be ok to vary too much from what we think the report says. If we can't plausibly come up with a way in which a PDP can substitute for an RT, it's far from obvious to me that we can do anything here. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Again speaking for myself without benefit of consultation and coordination internally, but with the benefit having watched all of this evolve, I think: We do indeed need to follow the rules, which means we do need to start the next review as soon as possible. We also need to assemble an integrated picture of the multiple processes so everyone can see who’s doing what and how the various processes are related to each other. Although we need to start the review process right away, we do have some latitude with respect to its scope. Bruce Tonkin has suggested for future reviews, presumably all of them, not just the directory services review, that we move toward asking a more specific questions to provide focus and to limit the amount of time and energy required to conduct these reviews. I think this last point moves in the direction you’re looking for even though it’s not as “efficient” as simply declaring the review unnecessary in total. Steve
On Apr 28, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 09:55:06AM -0400, Steve Crocker wrote:
Speaking for myself, without benefit of coordination with my colleagues on the ICANN Board or with staff, my quick reaction is a PDP is not a substitute for a review.
Ok (and I find I agree with your argument about the starting point of RT vs. PDP).
I believe quite strongly that we must follow the proposal closely, and with the above conclusion it seems likely that an RT is going to be needed for RDS as soon as the new bylaws come into effect. Given the ongoing PDP, that seems unfortunate, but it might just be a consequence that we have to accept given the state we're in (and the dictates of the calendar). I do _not_ think it would be ok to vary too much from what we think the report says. If we can't plausibly come up with a way in which a PDP can substitute for an RT, it's far from obvious to me that we can do anything here.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
We definitely do need an integrated picture, but at the first level, I think that should be a staff function. Perhaps one can target the review, but I see a real danger of diverting resources (people, time and energy) from the other efforts, with the possibility of even stalling or delaying them. With regard to the Board directing a RT on what they must focus on, I have no problem with suggestions, but more than that I see as the Board restricting the freedom of the RT. The AoC did that by being very prescriptive and the wording in the proposes Bylaws gives a RT (and particularly the ATRT) a lot of latitude to decide on what the important issues are at that specific point in time. Alan At 28/04/2016 10:18 AM, Steve Crocker wrote:
Again speaking for myself without benefit of consultation and coordination internally, but with the benefit having watched all of this evolve, I think:
* We do indeed need to follow the rules, which means we do need to start the next review as soon as possible. * We also need to assemble an integrated picture of the multiple processes so everyone can see whoâs doing what and how the various processes are related to each other. * Although we need to start the review process right away, we do have some latitude with respect to its scope. Bruce Tonkin has suggested for future reviews, presumably all of them, not just the directory services review, that we move toward asking a more specific questions to provide focus and to limit the amount of time and energy required to conduct these reviews.
I think this last point moves in the direction youâre looking for even though itâs not as âefficientâ as simply declaring the review unnecessary in total.
Steve
On Apr 28, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Andrew Sullivan <<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 09:55:06AM -0400, Steve Crocker wrote:
Speaking for myself, without benefit of coordination with my colleagues on the ICANN Board or with staff, my quick reaction is a PDP is not a substitute for a review.
Ok (and I find I agree with your argument about the starting point of RT vs. PDP).
I believe quite strongly that we must follow the proposal closely, and with the above conclusion it seems likely that an RT is going to be needed for RDS as soon as the new bylaws come into effect. Given the ongoing PDP, that seems unfortunate, but it might just be a consequence that we have to accept given the state we're in (and the dictates of the calendar). I do _not_ think it would be ok to vary too much from what we think the report says. If we can't plausibly come up with a way in which a PDP can substitute for an RT, it's far from obvious to me that we can do anything here.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello All,
Although we need to start the review process right away, we do have some latitude with respect to its scope. Bruce Tonkin has suggested for future reviews, presumably all of them, not just the directory services review, that we move toward asking a more specific questions to provide focus and to limit the amount of time and energy required to conduct these reviews.
A good starting point - would be to quickly identify what has been changed since the last review - e.g introduction of email address verification in the domain name registration process - and then measure the outcomes of that change. There is little point in reviewing the whole WHOIS system again and deciding it needs to change - when there is a PDP underway to come up with a new system. The most useful thing to do is identify the changes that have been made, and see if those changes are actually helping. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Thanks Bruce. This goes both ways as well. In setting out charters and scoping documents for working groups we need to pay more attention to upcoming Reviews, modify accordingly and, where possible, design things so input can be received from the Review process. Ed Sent from my iPhone
On 29 Apr 2016, at 11:02, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello All,
Although we need to start the review process right away, we do have some latitude with respect to its scope. Bruce Tonkin has suggested for future reviews, presumably all of them, not just the directory services review, that we move toward asking a more specific questions to provide focus and to limit the amount of time and energy required to conduct these reviews.
A good starting point - would be to quickly identify what has been changed since the last review - e.g introduction of email address verification in the domain name registration process - and then measure the outcomes of that change.
There is little point in reviewing the whole WHOIS system again and deciding it needs to change - when there is a PDP underway to come up with a new system. The most useful thing to do is identify the changes that have been made, and see if those changes are actually helping.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I do agree, Steve. Thomas --- rickert.net
Am 28.04.2016 um 15:55 schrieb Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com>:
Speaking for myself, without benefit of coordination with my colleagues on the ICANN Board or with staff, my quick reaction is a PDP is not a substitute for a review. I do believe we have to find a way to be more efficient and coordinated when we have multiple interacting processes, and collection of whois and directory services activities is probably the premier example at the moment. We don’t have a solution at the moment, but I don’t think equating a PDP with a review is the right approach. In principle, reviews start from a neutral position and assess the situation. In contrast, policy development processes start with the premise that a policy is needed and the bulk of the activity during a PDP is the creation and shaping of that policy. Reviews can lead to PDPs, but they’re not interchangeable.
Steve
On Apr 28, 2016, at 9:12 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
In thinking about the way the bylaws require the regular RTs and how those might interact with other processes, I'm wondering whether we think it would be consistent with the report to say that, if a PDP is going on about any topic that is subject to regular RT, then the PDP can be counted as fulfilling the purposes of the RT?
It seems to me that this is consistent with the point of the regular RT requirement (i.e. ensuring that the review happens in a timely way) without entailing that we waste time, money, and energy in multiple, potentially conflicting efforts on the same topic.
Have I missed something?
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thomas, Forgive me but I have no idea what you are agreeing with here. Steve’s statement contains a number of internal contradictions so I can’t tell. Are you agreeing with this: “I do believe we have to find a way to be more efficient and coordinated when we have multiple interacting processes, and collection of whois and directory services activities is probably the premier example at the moment.” Or this: “I don’t think equating a PDP with a review is the right approach.” Since a PDP always involves a review of existing policy and does not necessarily change existing policy, I don’t understand why this would not be duplication. Or do you agree with this factually incorrect statement: “In principle, reviews start from a neutral position and assess the situation.” Incorrect because the Whois reviews start from the premise that current policy is correct and should not be changed and all we need to do is review its effectiveness? From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 10:10 AM To: Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The whois/RDS-RT bylaw vs. current activities I do agree, Steve. Thomas --- rickert.net<http://rickert.net> Am 28.04.2016 um 15:55 schrieb Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com<mailto:steve@shinkuro.com>>: Speaking for myself, without benefit of coordination with my colleagues on the ICANN Board or with staff, my quick reaction is a PDP is not a substitute for a review. I do believe we have to find a way to be more efficient and coordinated when we have multiple interacting processes, and collection of whois and directory services activities is probably the premier example at the moment. We don’t have a solution at the moment, but I don’t think equating a PDP with a review is the right approach. In principle, reviews start from a neutral position and assess the situation. In contrast, policy development processes start with the premise that a policy is needed and the bulk of the activity during a PDP is the creation and shaping of that policy. Reviews can lead to PDPs, but they’re not interchangeable. Steve On Apr 28, 2016, at 9:12 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote: Hi, In thinking about the way the bylaws require the regular RTs and how those might interact with other processes, I'm wondering whether we think it would be consistent with the report to say that, if a PDP is going on about any topic that is subject to regular RT, then the PDP can be counted as fulfilling the purposes of the RT? It seems to me that this is consistent with the point of the regular RT requirement (i.e. ensuring that the review happens in a timely way) without entailing that we waste time, money, and energy in multiple, potentially conflicting efforts on the same topic. Have I missed something? Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
… Whois reviews start from the premise that current policy is correct and should not be changed and all we need to do is review its effectiveness?
Well, actually, the current Whois policy is not correct, and should be changed. CW On 29 Apr 2016, at 18:08, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
Thomas,
Forgive me but I have no idea what you are agreeing with here. Steve’s statement contains a number of internal contradictions so I can’t tell.
Are you agreeing with this:
“I do believe we have to find a way to be more efficient and coordinated when we have multiple interacting processes, and collection of whois and directory services activities is probably the premier example at the moment.”
Or this:
“I don’t think equating a PDP with a review is the right approach.”
Since a PDP always involves a review of existing policy and does not necessarily change existing policy, I don’t understand why this would not be duplication.
Or do you agree with this factually incorrect statement:
“In principle, reviews start from a neutral position and assess the situation.”
Incorrect because the Whois reviews start from the premise that current policy is correct and should not be changed and all we need to do is review its effectiveness?
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 10:10 AM To: Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The whois/RDS-RT bylaw vs. current activities
I do agree, Steve.
Thomas
--- rickert.net
Am 28.04.2016 um 15:55 schrieb Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com>:
Speaking for myself, without benefit of coordination with my colleagues on the ICANN Board or with staff, my quick reaction is a PDP is not a substitute for a review. I do believe we have to find a way to be more efficient and coordinated when we have multiple interacting processes, and collection of whois and directory services activities is probably the premier example at the moment. We don’t have a solution at the moment, but I don’t think equating a PDP with a review is the right approach. In principle, reviews start from a neutral position and assess the situation. In contrast, policy development processes start with the premise that a policy is needed and the bulk of the activity during a PDP is the creation and shaping of that policy. Reviews can lead to PDPs, but they’re not interchangeable.
Steve
On Apr 28, 2016, at 9:12 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
In thinking about the way the bylaws require the regular RTs and how those might interact with other processes, I'm wondering whether we think it would be consistent with the report to say that, if a PDP is going on about any topic that is subject to regular RT, then the PDP can be counted as fulfilling the purposes of the RT?
It seems to me that this is consistent with the point of the regular RT requirement (i.e. ensuring that the review happens in a timely way) without entailing that we waste time, money, and energy in multiple, potentially conflicting efforts on the same topic.
Have I missed something?
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On 29-Apr-16 15:53, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
… Whois reviews start from the premise that current policy is correct and should not be changed and all we need to do is review its effectiveness?
Well, actually, the current Whois policy is not correct, and should be changed.
I see no reason a Review could not point out errors and recommend that a policy process do something about them. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
At this stage of implementation, it can not change anything that has been decided previously... Kind regards Alberto -----Mensaje original----- De: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de avri doria Enviado el: sábado, 30 de abril de 2016 12:51 a.m. Para: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Asunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The whois/RDS-RT bylaw vs. current activities On 29-Apr-16 15:53, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
Whois reviews start from the premise that current policy is correct and should not be changed and all we need to do is review its effectiveness?
Well, actually, the current Whois policy is not correct, and should be changed.
I see no reason a Review could not point out errors and recommend that a policy process do something about them. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community This email has been protected by YAC (Yet Another Cleaner) http://www.yac.mx
-----Original Message-----
I see no reason a Review could not point out errors and recommend that a policy process do something about them.
"9.3.1 ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information." Do you see now?
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Everything is changeable via consensus policy On 4/30/16, 10:19 AM, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Mueller, Milton L" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
I see no reason a Review could not point out errors and recommend that a policy process do something about them.
"9.3.1 ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information."
Do you see now?
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi Milton, of course I forgive you. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to help shed some light on my thinking. Firstly, Andrew asked about the relationship between RTs and PDP in general and Steve mentioned whois /RDS as a an example. Hence, I read this a being a general question and Steve’s response to be general and not just focused the whois / RDS issue. More info below...
Am 29.04.2016 um 18:08 schrieb Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>:
Thomas,
Forgive me but I have no idea what you are agreeing with here. Steve’s statement contains a number of internal contradictions so I can’t tell.
Are you agreeing with this:
“I do believe we have to find a way to be more efficient and coordinated when we have multiple interacting processes, and collection of whois and directory services activities is probably the premier example at the moment.”
I do agree that we need a more co-ordinated approach to reviews and PDP work. To give another example: If you take the whole RPM topic (UDRP, IGO-INGO etc), it clearly shows that different processes on related or interlinking issues are under way and that take resources. I do see room for improvement on this, which would also lead to less burden for the community, reduce the risk of duplicate efforts and increase chances of more timely solutions (which is more rewarding for volunteers, too).
Or this:
“I don’t think equating a PDP with a review is the right approach.”
Since a PDP always involves a review of existing policy and does not necessarily change existing policy, I don’t understand why this would not be duplication.
I think Avri described the different quite nicely, so please insert Avi’s mail here...
Or do you agree with this factually incorrect statement:
“In principle, reviews start from a neutral position and assess the situation.”
Incorrect because the Whois reviews start from the premise that current policy is correct and should not be changed and all we need to do is review its effectiveness?
As mentioned before, I understood the question to be of general nature. Reviews take a fresh look at the present situation and come up, if any, with suggestions where improvements shall be made or things need to be updated to match current requirements. I hope this answers your questions. Best, Thomas
<> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 10:10 AM To: Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com <mailto:steve@shinkuro.com>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The whois/RDS-RT bylaw vs. current activities
I do agree, Steve.
Thomas
--- rickert.net <http://rickert.net/>
Am 28.04.2016 um 15:55 schrieb Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com <mailto:steve@shinkuro.com>>:
Speaking for myself, without benefit of coordination with my colleagues on the ICANN Board or with staff, my quick reaction is a PDP is not a substitute for a review. I do believe we have to find a way to be more efficient and coordinated when we have multiple interacting processes, and collection of whois and directory services activities is probably the premier example at the moment. We don’t have a solution at the moment, but I don’t think equating a PDP with a review is the right approach. In principle, reviews start from a neutral position and assess the situation. In contrast, policy development processes start with the premise that a policy is needed and the bulk of the activity during a PDP is the creation and shaping of that policy. Reviews can lead to PDPs, but they’re not interchangeable.
Steve
On Apr 28, 2016, at 9:12 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
Hi,
In thinking about the way the bylaws require the regular RTs and how those might interact with other processes, I'm wondering whether we think it would be consistent with the report to say that, if a PDP is going on about any topic that is subject to regular RT, then the PDP can be counted as fulfilling the purposes of the RT?
It seems to me that this is consistent with the point of the regular RT requirement (i.e. ensuring that the review happens in a timely way) without entailing that we waste time, money, and energy in multiple, potentially conflicting efforts on the same topic.
Have I missed something?
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
Agree with Steve. Presently the PDP on subsequent rounds and the CCT Review are coordinating “live” in a rather efficient manner with calls between the leaderships every two weeks. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 28 Apr 2016, at 7:55, Steve Crocker wrote:
Speaking for myself, without benefit of coordination with my colleagues on the ICANN Board or with staff, my quick reaction is a PDP is not a substitute for a review. I do believe we have to find a way to be more efficient and coordinated when we have multiple interacting processes, and collection of whois and directory services activities is probably the premier example at the moment. We don’t have a solution at the moment, but I don’t think equating a PDP with a review is the right approach. In principle, reviews start from a neutral position and assess the situation. In contrast, policy development processes start with the premise that a policy is needed and the bulk of the activity during a PDP is the creation and shaping of that policy. Reviews can lead to PDPs, but they’re not interchangeable.
Steve
On Apr 28, 2016, at 9:12 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
In thinking about the way the bylaws require the regular RTs and how those might interact with other processes, I'm wondering whether we think it would be consistent with the report to say that, if a PDP is going on about any topic that is subject to regular RT, then the PDP can be counted as fulfilling the purposes of the RT?
It seems to me that this is consistent with the point of the regular RT requirement (i.e. ensuring that the review happens in a timely way) without entailing that we waste time, money, and energy in multiple, potentially conflicting efforts on the same topic.
Have I missed something?
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I agree with Steve as well. Greg On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org> wrote:
Agree with Steve. Presently the PDP on subsequent rounds and the CCT Review are coordinating “live” in a rather efficient manner with calls between the leaderships every two weeks.
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
On 28 Apr 2016, at 7:55, Steve Crocker wrote:
Speaking for myself, without benefit of coordination with my colleagues on
the ICANN Board or with staff, my quick reaction is a PDP is not a substitute for a review. I do believe we have to find a way to be more efficient and coordinated when we have multiple interacting processes, and collection of whois and directory services activities is probably the premier example at the moment. We don’t have a solution at the moment, but I don’t think equating a PDP with a review is the right approach. In principle, reviews start from a neutral position and assess the situation. In contrast, policy development processes start with the premise that a policy is needed and the bulk of the activity during a PDP is the creation and shaping of that policy. Reviews can lead to PDPs, but they’re not interchangeable.
Steve
On Apr 28, 2016, at 9:12 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
wrote:
Hi,
In thinking about the way the bylaws require the regular RTs and how those might interact with other processes, I'm wondering whether we think it would be consistent with the report to say that, if a PDP is going on about any topic that is subject to regular RT, then the PDP can be counted as fulfilling the purposes of the RT?
It seems to me that this is consistent with the point of the regular RT requirement (i.e. ensuring that the review happens in a timely way) without entailing that we waste time, money, and energy in multiple, potentially conflicting efforts on the same topic.
Have I missed something?
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello, You must remember my repetitive requests to define a hard stop for the IRP consideration of a conflict since the language proposed by the lawyers fix it to 6 months except in some circonstances, and neither the nature of the circonstances nor the maximum duration of the IRP proceedings are defined. On at least 2 CCWG calls and on the mailing list, I raised the issue, and I was told that it will be corrected. But in the bylaws under public comment now, it is made worse since it says: Section 3.4 (s) An IRP Panel should complete an IRP proceeding expeditiously, issuing an early scheduling order and its written decision no later than six months after the filing of the Claim, except as otherwise permitted under the Rules of Procedure. For the avoidance of doubt, an IRP Panel’s failure to issue a written decision within six months after the filing of a Claim shall not be grounds for another Claim. That means that an IRP can last for years since an IRP Panel’s failure to issue a written decision within six months after the filing of a Claim shall not be grounds for another Claim. I don’t ask to impose 6 months period for the IRP proceedings. The first part of the proposed text is fine: An IRP Panel should complete an IRP proceeding expeditiously, issuing an early scheduling order and its written decision no later than six months after the filing of the Claim, except as otherwise permitted under the Rules of Procedure. My problem is with the last part that say: For the avoidance of doubt, an IRP Panel’s failure to issue a written decision within six months after the filing of a Claim shall not be grounds for another Claim. This means that even if the panel takes 2 years to issue its decision, nothing can be done. My proposal is to remove the last part, and in the Rule of Procedure, we define the nature of the circonstances that may prevent the panel to issue its decision in 6 months, and the maximum extension that could be given to the IRP according to the nature of the circonstance to complete its proceedings. Why it is important: the more the time is long, the more there are rooms for capture (corruption). Don’t forget that the decision of an IRP may be too important for the business of the claimant, so they may be tempted to use any mean to get the decision they wish. If we don’t define a maximum time, we increase this kind of risk. If the last part of the text is not removed from the proposed Bylaws, and even if the RoP fix the maximum extension period for the IRP to issue its decision, this will not have any effect: the Bylaws which has more weight then a RoP says explicitly that IRP Panel’s failure to issue a written decision within six months after the filing of a Claim shall not be grounds for another Claim. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew: You've hit a nail on a head, and can expect some obfuscation to follow. The original Affirmation of Commitments essentially contained a promise - extracted out of the USG by one stakeholder group and imposed on the rest of us without any participation - that ICANN would never change its basic Whois policy. This is one reason why I've never been thrilled about incorporating the AoC into the accountability reform process. The AoC contained good accountability and transparency language but also got attached to it a bunch of commitments that essentially circumvented the actual bottom up policy process. For that reason I would strongly support your suggestion that a review of Whois/RDS not duplicate a PDP. --MM
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 9:13 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] The whois/RDS-RT bylaw vs. current activities
Hi,
In thinking about the way the bylaws require the regular RTs and how those might interact with other processes, I'm wondering whether we think it would be consistent with the report to say that, if a PDP is going on about any topic that is subject to regular RT, then the PDP can be counted as fulfilling the purposes of the RT?
It seems to me that this is consistent with the point of the regular RT requirement (i.e. ensuring that the review happens in a timely way) without entailing that we waste time, money, and energy in multiple, potentially conflicting efforts on the same topic.
Have I missed something?
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
hi, In answer to Andrews question, I do not believe a PDP can replace a Review. Reviews are done by a full community group and PDPs are done by one SO. Though each their processes may be open to anyone and everyone, PDPs may allow for much broader group membership. They have different processes and different goals. Another point, the output of a Review is often input to a PDP as well as other processes. There may be dependencies between an ongoing review and a ongoing PDP, but I do not think the bylaws need to discuss that. Milton, one good thing about having it in the bylaws is that bylaws are mutable. As for the reviews coincident with the transition, I think we should just do them. A level setting for the transition would be a good thing to have. signed: Obfuscatia On 29-Apr-16 12:02, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
Andrew: You've hit a nail on a head, and can expect some obfuscation to follow.
The original Affirmation of Commitments essentially contained a promise - extracted out of the USG by one stakeholder group and imposed on the rest of us without any participation - that ICANN would never change its basic Whois policy. This is one reason why I've never been thrilled about incorporating the AoC into the accountability reform process. The AoC contained good accountability and transparency language but also got attached to it a bunch of commitments that essentially circumvented the actual bottom up policy process.
For that reason I would strongly support your suggestion that a review of Whois/RDS not duplicate a PDP.
--MM
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 9:13 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] The whois/RDS-RT bylaw vs. current activities
Hi,
In thinking about the way the bylaws require the regular RTs and how those might interact with other processes, I'm wondering whether we think it would be consistent with the report to say that, if a PDP is going on about any topic that is subject to regular RT, then the PDP can be counted as fulfilling the purposes of the RT?
It seems to me that this is consistent with the point of the regular RT requirement (i.e. ensuring that the review happens in a timely way) without entailing that we waste time, money, and energy in multiple, potentially conflicting efforts on the same topic.
Have I missed something?
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
+1 to "Obfuscatia." Greg On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:16 PM, avri doria <avri@apc.org> wrote: > hi, > > In answer to Andrews question, I do not believe a PDP can replace a > Review. Reviews are done by a full community group and PDPs are done by > one SO. Though each their processes may be open to anyone and everyone, > PDPs may allow for much broader group membership. They have different > processes and different goals. Another point, the output of a Review is > often input to a PDP as well as other processes. There may be > dependencies between an ongoing review and a ongoing PDP, but I do not > think the bylaws need to discuss that. > > Milton, one good thing about having it in the bylaws is that bylaws are > mutable. > > As for the reviews coincident with the transition, I think we should > just do them. A level setting for the transition would be a good thing > to have. > > > signed: > Obfuscatia > > On 29-Apr-16 12:02, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Andrew: > > You've hit a nail on a head, and can expect some obfuscation to follow. > > > > The original Affirmation of Commitments essentially contained a promise > - extracted out of the USG by one stakeholder group and imposed on the rest > of us without any participation - that ICANN would never change its basic > Whois policy. This is one reason why I've never been thrilled about > incorporating the AoC into the accountability reform process. The AoC > contained good accountability and transparency language but also got > attached to it a bunch of commitments that essentially circumvented the > actual bottom up policy process. > > > > For that reason I would strongly support your suggestion that a review > of Whois/RDS not duplicate a PDP. > > > > --MM > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > >> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of > >> Andrew Sullivan > >> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 9:13 AM > >> To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org > >> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] The whois/RDS-RT bylaw vs. current activities > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> In thinking about the way the bylaws require the regular RTs and how > those > >> might interact with other processes, I'm wondering whether we think it > would > >> be consistent with the report to say that, if a PDP is going on about > any topic > >> that is subject to regular RT, then the PDP can be counted as > fulfilling the > >> purposes of the RT? > >> > >> It seems to me that this is consistent with the point of the regular RT > >> requirement (i.e. ensuring that the review happens in a timely way) > without > >> entailing that we waste time, money, and energy in multiple, potentially > >> conflicting efforts on the same topic. > >> > >> Have I missed something? > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> A > >> > >> -- > >> Andrew Sullivan > >> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- > >> Community@icann.org > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >
Dear Andrew, Yes and NO if we wish to short cut and /or economize a PDP process COULD be equivalent /replace of a RT. Regards Kavouss 2016-04-28 15:12 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>:
Hi,
In thinking about the way the bylaws require the regular RTs and how those might interact with other processes, I'm wondering whether we think it would be consistent with the report to say that, if a PDP is going on about any topic that is subject to regular RT, then the PDP can be counted as fulfilling the purposes of the RT?
It seems to me that this is consistent with the point of the regular RT requirement (i.e. ensuring that the review happens in a timely way) without entailing that we waste time, money, and energy in multiple, potentially conflicting efforts on the same topic.
Have I missed something?
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (15)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Alberto Soto -
Andrew Sullivan -
avri doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Edward Morris -
Greg Shatan -
Jonathan Zuck -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Mueller, Milton L -
Steve Crocker -
Thomas Rickert -
Tijani BEN JEMAA