Hi Jordan,
Does ICANN want this done quickly (all the pushes we get in private), or does it want this done right?
I don’t speak for the Board but I can say that I believe that the Board’s view is reflected in my note to the ccTLD lists which has been copied now to the CCWG list in my response to Milton. To quote therefrom: "I stress again that the Board is, in my opinion, 100% behind the transition. However, the transition has to be 'done right' and ‘transition at all costs’ is not an acceptable stance,…"
Does ICANN want this done quickly (all the pushes we get in private), or does it want this done right?
My preference is the latter.
Personally, I support your preference. Cheers, Chris
On 15 Dec 2015, at 17:35 , Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
First off, I would like staff to make sure this reply goes to the whole of the lists involved.
On the main point, see in line below:
On 15 December 2015 at 04:35, Mike Silber <mike.silber@icann.org <mailto:mike.silber@icann.org>> wrote: Let me add a very emphatic +1 to Chris’ comments and let me join him in his offer to engage.
I would also like to offer one example of a place where Chris and I were very concerned: the veto rights in respect of the IANA (or what will be post-transition IANA) budget: The CCWG report gave the empowered community the power to veto the IANA functions budget (see paragraph 149 on page 28). Now this concerns me as someone from the ccTLD world, as it seems there would be a veto exercisable by parties who are not IANA customers, over the IANA budget – potentially impacting the services IANA customers can expect. (For example – money needs to be spent on IANA improvements. The operational communities approve it. However non-operational communities believe that money should rather be spent on an extra meeting, or more travel support.) I was somewhat soothed by the suggestion (at 151) of two distinct processes. However I examine the detailed annex (annex 2) and cannot find any difference in the process between rejecting the ICANN budget and rejecting the IANA budget. I suspect this is purely an oversight and has no more sinister motivation – but right now this puts the IANA budget partly in the hands of parties who are not IANA customers and I think that is not appropriate.
I tried to raise this matter in the course of discussions about the use of this power. It seemed to me logical that the customer groups should decide re any IANA veto. But this idea got no traction.
Fixing this now, of course, creates substantial delays. Unless we can agree that it would be adjusted in WS2.
More broadly, Mike and Chris, can you untangle a confusion for me?
ICANN has been pushing very hard to get this transition done and dusted.
We in the CCWG leadership were told very emphatically that delays beyond late December would destroy the prospects of getting it done before September 2016.
Both at LA and now with this comment, much less aggressively this time, the Board comments introduce delays into the process.
Does ICANN want this done quickly (all the pushes we get in private), or does it want this done right?
My preference is the latter.
I have been prepared to go along with the former.
Can you help tease this out?
Many thanks Jordan
I am of the view that this oversight can be resolved quite easily and the Board has made some suggestions how to do this. You may or may not agree with the exact suggestions – but I think you will all agree that this situation causes concern. I would really encourage you to review the board comments and test your reaction: You do not agree with the comment at all; You agree with the comment and the possible solution; or You agree with the comment but have a better / alternate solution. Please do this as soon as possible and let the CCWG have your reaction.
Regards
Mike
On 14/12/2015 12:57, "Chris Disspain" <owner-ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org> on behalf of ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote:
Hello All,
You will probably by now have seen that the Board has submitted some comments in respect to the Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal and an accompanying letter from Steve Crocker. In case you haven’t seen these yet, they are attached.
I thought it was important, as a ccNSO elected member of the Board, to write to you to explain the background to these comments and offer to discuss them with you at your convenience.
I am writing personally and not at the behest of the Board nor to provide you with input/comment from the Board. These are my personal opinions about where I think the Board is at, their motivation (and mine) for making the comments and what some of the comments might mean.
In my opinion, the Board is 100% supportive of the transition and filled with admiration for the work and effort of those involved in the CCWG. The Board believes that there are a number of areas of concern in the report that need to be dealt with. I stress that these are concerns of the Board as a whole. They are not concerns of staff that have simply been agreed to by the Board but rather concerns that the Board has expressed. Whilst the comment document has been drafted by staff (as has the draft proposal from the CCWG) this has been done at the direction of the Board and the full Board has unanimously endorsed the comments.
Some of these areas of concern can be characterised as ‘might it be better if’ areas but a small number are of higher concern. The Board has carefully considered these and provided detailed comment together with suggestions for dealing with the problem(s) that the Board perceives. There may be other solutions to the problems and the Board is not tied to its suggested solution.
In my opinion, the Board believes that if these higher concern recommendations (or parts thereof) are not dealt with then when the Board applies the global public interest test, in accordance with its resolution of 16 October 2014 (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d>), there is a significant chance that the Board will find that some of those recommendations do not meet that test.
I fully endorse the Board comments and I believe that it is in all of our best interests as ccTLD managers to take them into account. I encourage you to carefully consider the CCWG recommendations and the comments of the Board and to provide your input to the ccNSO Council. I fully respect that some of you will not agree with all (or any!) of the comments of the Board but hope that, given my role and my commitment to the ccNSO and ccTLDs generally, you will understand that these comments are well intentioned and made in an effort to solve real issues with the current CCWG draft.
I stress again that the Board is, in my opinion, 100% behind the transition. However, the transition has to be 'done right' and ‘transition at all costs’ is not an acceptable stance, in my view. I know the time line is important but I would rather miss a deadline than not deal with the very real concerns of a group of 19 experienced individuals who have been nominated or elected to the Board to serve the ICANN community and to act in their best interests.
I will be delighted to answer any questions (on or off list) and to talk to you one-on-one or as a group. I stand ready to do whatever it takes to get a CCWG Final Report out to NTIA as soon as possible.
Cheers,
Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer
.au Domain Administration Ltd
T: +61 3 8341 4111 <tel:%2B61%203%208341%204111> | F: +61 3 8341 4112 <tel:%2B61%203%208341%204112> E: ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/>
auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz/>
A better world through a better Internet