Martin has an extremely good point. BUT this needs to be relegated to a footnote at the very least. It is very easy for those outside the community to misinterpret the prominence it is currently given. And language needs to be inserted AS I UNDERSTOOD HAD BEEN UNANIMOUSLY AGREED to refer to the adoption of the Framework of Interpretation by the ICANN Board as a true construction of the existing policies. And it was my understanding that is exactly what was agreed in the meeting, and on that basis I cast my vote accordingly in favour of transmitting the proposal to the ICG. I really do not wish to have to issue a public clarification in this regard. By apparently resisting the clarificatio/footnoting that we agreed upon, some of you appear to be creating a perception of conspiracy where, I do not yet believe, any exists, it seems to me. If you were not there at the time (13 years ago), you really cannot appreciate the sensitivity here. Think of it as a Confederate Flag (or Hakenkreuz) issue, and I need you, please, don't start trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Nigel Roberts, ccNSO Council member (it should go without saying this is a personal input, but just in case that's not obvious . .) On 25/06/15 03:51, Martin Boyle wrote:
Do you know, I personally feel much more comfortable saying that ICP-1 is not agreed policy ("the [ccNSO] ityformally rejected the ICP-1 document "), given that the principles that are part of the proposals also clearly make reference to the idea that ICANN cannot just unilaterally invent policy.
There is (particularly at this stage) harm in removing this text.
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org [mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sent: 24 June 2015 17:40 To: lisefuhrforwader Cc: <ccnso-members@icann.org>; <ccnso-council@icann.org>; <cctldworld@icann.org>; J. William Semich; <cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org> Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Re: Agenda ccNSO Council: decision on CWG Stewardship Final Proposal expected at 17.05 local time (UTC 20.05)
So, then there is no harm in removing it.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jun 24, 2015, at 17:14, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk> wrote:
Dear all,
The text in the CWG proposal is not contrary to what Bill and others says. Please see the text below regarding ICP-1 which is taken from the proposal page 8:
"Internet Coordination Policy 1 (ICP-1). 24 This document from the Internet Coordination Policy group of ICANN was one of three such documents created by ICANN staff shortly after its creation. It attempted to update operational details over how the DNS was structured and should be run.
25 The ICP-1 document was a source of significant friction between ICANN and the ccTLD community and the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) formally rejected the ICP-1 document (final report of the ccNSO’s Delegation and Redelegation Working Group or DRDWG) arguing that it modified policy but did not meet the requirements for doing so at the time of its introduction in 1999.
Best regards, Lise Fuhr Co-chair of CWG
-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: owner-ccnso-members@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-members@icann.org] På vegne af J. William Semich Sendt: 24. juni 2015 21:52 Til: Eberhard Lisse Cc: ccnso-members@icann.org; cctldworld@icann.org; cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org; ccnso-council@icann.org; dns-admin@na-nic.com.NA Emne: Re: [ccnso-members] Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Agenda ccNSO Council: decision on CWG Stewardship Final Proposal expected at 17.05 local time (UTC 20.05) Prioritet: Høj
To the ccTLD Council Members:
.NU domain also objects to including any reference to ICP-1.
ICP-1 was never presented to and was never approved by the ccTLD community; instead, ICANN staff created it out of whole cloth (“fabricated it”) at its first meeting in 1999 in Berlin (where I served the ccTLD community as a member of ICANN's initial DNSO Council). There was no ccNSO at that time.
I still remember the meeting at which then-president Mike Roberts announced - with no warning to ccTLD managers - the imposition of ICP-1.
And I still remember Andrew McLaughlin, an up-and-coming young telecommunications lawyer with no experience in internet governance or in TLDs, whom Roberts had hired to be his staff assistant to ”oversee” ccTLDs.
At that meeting McLaughlin explained to ccTLD managers that from then on, ICANN would require that all ccTLD managers follow ICP-1, ICANN's “first Internet Coordination Policy."
And I also still remember how McLaughlin's attempted explanation - presenting ICP-1 as a "fait accompli" - resulted in a small riot among managers who attended the meeting, which ended abruptly when we all walked out of the meeting.
ICANN staff expected it could just come up with new policies, without consulting the community, and we would all just march in lockstep and obey, like good soldiers.
Not exactly what we had thought would happen when ccTLD managers agreed to participate in the White Paper process that created ICANN in 1998.
ICP-1 was never presented to the ccTLD community for consensus approval (in fact, ICANN staff repeatedly refused to present it for approval), and as such, ICP-1 has no basis for inclusion in any CWG Stewardship proposal.
I remind you that the ccTLD Community strongly rejected it when it was presented in 1999 at the Berlin meeting (with no warning or consultation) and posted on ICANN’s website, and despite our strong objections, ICANN staff stubbornly and repeatedly ignored the negative input from ccTLD managers, and AFAIK, no manager has ever expressed any support for it.
For many ccTLD managers who have been involved in this process since ICANN’s inception, ICP-1 was and still is a thorn in our side.
Please consider this strong objection from .NU domain in your deliberations on this matter.
Bill Semich .NU Domain Co-founder, ICANN Co-founder, ccNSO Co-founder and former Vice-Chair, APTLD Member, FOI-WG Former member, DNSO Council
On Jun 24, 2015, at 2:17 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Dear Council,
since I can't post to the Council List, and since I was on a DNSSEC panel in the morning and am about to go to the CCWG Working Session 2 I have not been able and will not be able to put my objection on the record against the retention of the reference(s) of ICP-1 in the CWG Stewardship proposal, which would be a show stopper for NA-NiC.
greetings, el
On 2015-06-24 14:55 , Bart Boswinkel wrote: Dear all, Included the ccNSO Council agenda for today 24 June 2015. [...]
*3. Support submission of the CWG-Stewardship Proposal to ICG* [...] -- Dr Eberhard W Lisse Managing Director Namibian Network Information Centre (Pty) Ltd. PO Box 8421 Bachbrecht Namibia
_______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org _______________________________________________ Cctldworld mailing list Cctldworld@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldworld