Business Constituency point about Affirmation Reviews in the new draft Bylaws
Today the BC agreed to share these points about the draft new bylaws, regarding the SSR and WHOIS Affirmation Reviews. These 2 reviews are already late per the Affirmation requirements, and would also be “late" when we add the review requirement to the Bylaws. The BC is not troubled by a new Bylaw that also requires ICANN to begin the next SSR and WHOIS review as soon as possible. -- Draft Bylaws Section 4.6 (c) (v), regarding timing of the Security, Stability, and Resiliency (SSR) review required under the Affirmation of Commitments, which is now to be brought into ICANN bylaws. Text from new Bylaws: "The SSR Review shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years, measured from the date the previous SSR Review Team was convened." BC Comment: The previous SSR review was convened in 2010, so a 5-year interval would require the next review by Oct-2015. Some CCWG members are concerned that the above text creates a new problem since the SSR review would be at least 1 year late at the time the Bylaws are approved. Those concerned are suggesting revisions to the draft Bylaws to avoid a situation where ICANN is immediately failing to honor its new Bylaws. The SSR review is already later than is required under the Affirmation of Commitments, so ICANN is already failing to meet that obligation. We are not troubled by a new Bylaw that also requires ICANN to begin the next SSR review as soon as possible. We prefer that ICANN follow through on the Board-approved 2016 start date for SSR-2 review. We expect SSR-2 to assess ICANN’s implementation of SSR-1, including the extent to which ICANN is prepared to meet future challenges and threats to the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS, consistent with ICANN's limited technical mission. — Draft Bylaws Section 4.6 (e) (v), regarding timing of the Whois/Directory Service review required under the Affirmation of Commitments, which is now to be brought into ICANN bylaws. Text from new Bylaws: "The Directory Service Review shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years, measured from the date the previous Directory Service Review Team was convened.” BC Comment: The previous Whois review was convened in Oct-2010, so a 5-year interval would require the next review by Oct-2015. Some CCWG members are concerned that the above text creates a new problem since the Whois/Directory Service review would be at least 1 year late at the time the Bylaws are approved. Those concerned are suggesting revisions to the draft Bylaws to avoid a situation where ICANN is immediately failing to honor its new Bylaws. The Whois review is already later than is required under the Affirmation of Commitments, so ICANN is already failing to meet that obligation. We are not troubled by a new Bylaw that also requires ICANN to begin the next Whois/Directory Service review as soon as possible. We prefer that ICANN follow through on the Board-approved 2016 start date for Whois-2 review. We expect Whois-2 to assess ICANN’s implementation of Whois-1 and current Whois policy. We recognize that there are policy efforts underway to develop a next generation registration directory service. As repeatedly reinforced by ICANN’s Board, however, the effort to replace Whois complements, and runs in parallel with, ICANN’s obligation to fully enforce existing consensus policy and contractual conditions relating to Whois.
All, I am currently polling the IPC to confirm that the IPC supports the points made here by the BC. I am reasonably confident that such support will be forthcoming. Greg Shatan President, IPC On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:
Today the BC agreed to share these points about the draft new bylaws, regarding the SSR and WHOIS Affirmation Reviews.
These 2 reviews are *already* late per the Affirmation requirements, and would also be “late" when we add the review requirement to the Bylaws. The BC is not troubled by a new Bylaw that also requires ICANN to begin the next SSR and WHOIS review as soon as possible.
--
Draft Bylaws Section 4.6 (c) (v), regarding timing of the Security, Stability, and Resiliency (SSR) review required under the Affirmation of Commitments, which is now to be brought into ICANN bylaws.
Text from new Bylaws: "The SSR Review shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years, measured from the date the previous SSR Review Team was convened."
*BC Comment*: The previous SSR review was convened in 2010, so a 5-year interval would require the next review by Oct-2015. Some CCWG members are concerned that the above text creates a new problem since the SSR review would be at least 1 year late at the time the Bylaws are approved. Those concerned are suggesting revisions to the draft Bylaws to avoid a situation where ICANN is immediately failing to honor its new Bylaws.
The SSR review is already later than is required under the Affirmation of Commitments, so ICANN is already failing to meet that obligation. We are not troubled by a new Bylaw that also requires ICANN to begin the next SSR review as soon as possible.
We prefer that ICANN follow through on the Board-approved 2016 start date for SSR-2 review. We expect SSR-2 to assess ICANN’s implementation of SSR-1, including the extent to which ICANN is prepared to meet future challenges and threats to the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS, consistent with ICANN's limited technical mission.
—
Draft Bylaws Section 4.6 (e) (v), regarding timing of the Whois/Directory Service review required under the Affirmation of Commitments, which is now to be brought into ICANN bylaws.
Text from new Bylaws: "The Directory Service Review shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years, measured from the date the previous Directory Service Review Team was convened.”
*BC Comment*: The previous Whois review was convened in Oct-2010, so a 5-year interval would require the next review by Oct-2015. Some CCWG members are concerned that the above text creates a new problem since the Whois/Directory Service review would be at least 1 year late at the time the Bylaws are approved. Those concerned are suggesting revisions to the draft Bylaws to avoid a situation where ICANN is immediately failing to honor its new Bylaws.
The Whois review is already later than is required under the Affirmation of Commitments, so ICANN is already failing to meet that obligation. We are not troubled by a new Bylaw that also requires ICANN to begin the next Whois/Directory Service review as soon as possible.
We prefer that ICANN follow through on the Board-approved 2016 start date for Whois-2 review. We expect Whois-2 to assess ICANN’s implementation of Whois-1 and current Whois policy. We recognize that there are policy efforts underway to develop a next generation registration directory service. As repeatedly reinforced by ICANN’s Board, however, the effort to replace Whois complements, and runs in parallel with, ICANN’s obligation to fully enforce existing consensus policy and contractual conditions relating to Whois.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
For clarification, I wanted to pass along the following information about the history of the modification to the AoC review schedules. The 2nd Review of the Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS (SSR RT-2) will commence with a call for volunteers to be issued in June, 2016. Please note that this schedule was set following a Board resolution<https://features.icann.org/proposed-schedule-and-process-operational-improve...> last year that delayed the start of several AoC reviews (including SSR RT-2, WHOIS RT-2T, and ATRT-3) to address widespread community concerns regarding community bandwidth and its ability to manage the expected workload. This approach was supported by public comments received<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-aoc-org-reviews-process-2015-...> from At-Large and several GNSO stakeholders on the proposed schedule. The Board’s rationale notes: “The Board is addressing this issue because of the significant impact seven reviews in FY2016 would have on ICANN stakeholders' capacity and ICANN resources. In response to public requests to delay some and effectiveness of Reviews, a proposal was posted for public comment that called for four Reviews to take place in FY2016 and introduced several improvements to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of Reviews. Widespread concerns were received regarding the community's and ICANN's ability to conduct this large number of simultaneous Reviews, in addition to the already heavy workload, such as the IANA stewardship transition and the many policy initiatives underway and anticipated to start in FY2016. As a result, today's action provides relief to the community by proposing an updated schedule of reviews, and operational and process improvements to enable the community to more effectively participate in these key accountability mechanisms.” Please note that this updated review schedule was done in coordination with NTIA, as the signatory to the AoC. This is documented in the letter dated 28 January 2016 from Fadi Chehade to Larry Strickling<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/chehade-to-strickling-2...>. Thus, ICANN continues to comply with its commitments under the Affirmation of Commitments while responding to community concerns about workload. Best regards, Sam From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 2:17 PM To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: BC List <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Business Constituency point about Affirmation Reviews in the new draft Bylaws Today the BC agreed to share these points about the draft new bylaws, regarding the SSR and WHOIS Affirmation Reviews. These 2 reviews are already late per the Affirmation requirements, and would also be “late" when we add the review requirement to the Bylaws. The BC is not troubled by a new Bylaw that also requires ICANN to begin the next SSR and WHOIS review as soon as possible. -- Draft Bylaws Section 4.6 (c) (v), regarding timing of the Security, Stability, and Resiliency (SSR) review required under the Affirmation of Commitments, which is now to be brought into ICANN bylaws. Text from new Bylaws: "The SSR Review shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years, measured from the date the previous SSR Review Team was convened." BC Comment: The previous SSR review was convened in 2010, so a 5-year interval would require the next review by Oct-2015. Some CCWG members are concerned that the above text creates a new problem since the SSR review would be at least 1 year late at the time the Bylaws are approved. Those concerned are suggesting revisions to the draft Bylaws to avoid a situation where ICANN is immediately failing to honor its new Bylaws. The SSR review is already later than is required under the Affirmation of Commitments, so ICANN is already failing to meet that obligation. We are not troubled by a new Bylaw that also requires ICANN to begin the next SSR review as soon as possible. We prefer that ICANN follow through on the Board-approved 2016 start date for SSR-2 review. We expect SSR-2 to assess ICANN’s implementation of SSR-1, including the extent to which ICANN is prepared to meet future challenges and threats to the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS, consistent with ICANN's limited technical mission. — Draft Bylaws Section 4.6 (e) (v), regarding timing of the Whois/Directory Service review required under the Affirmation of Commitments, which is now to be brought into ICANN bylaws. Text from new Bylaws: "The Directory Service Review shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years, measured from the date the previous Directory Service Review Team was convened.” BC Comment: The previous Whois review was convened in Oct-2010, so a 5-year interval would require the next review by Oct-2015. Some CCWG members are concerned that the above text creates a new problem since the Whois/Directory Service review would be at least 1 year late at the time the Bylaws are approved. Those concerned are suggesting revisions to the draft Bylaws to avoid a situation where ICANN is immediately failing to honor its new Bylaws. The Whois review is already later than is required under the Affirmation of Commitments, so ICANN is already failing to meet that obligation. We are not troubled by a new Bylaw that also requires ICANN to begin the next Whois/Directory Service review as soon as possible. We prefer that ICANN follow through on the Board-approved 2016 start date for Whois-2 review. We expect Whois-2 to assess ICANN’s implementation of Whois-1 and current Whois policy. We recognize that there are policy efforts underway to develop a next generation registration directory service. As repeatedly reinforced by ICANN’s Board, however, the effort to replace Whois complements, and runs in parallel with, ICANN’s obligation to fully enforce existing consensus policy and contractual conditions relating to Whois.
participants (3)
-
Greg Shatan -
Samantha Eisner -
Steve DelBianco