This seems to have dropped off the ccNSO list for some reason. It’s an important discussion IMO. Cheers, Chris
Begin forwarded message:
From: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels Date: 12 October 2015 22:54:44 AEDT To: "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>, <sdeerhake@nic.as> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org
What say you? Do you think that the ccNSO should be able to run a PDP that demands, say, ICANN give a lot of money to ccTLD projects, and not have that subject to question?
Thanks for re-stating your question Jordan. I have pasted from a number of your previous messages.
Yes, I think that the ccNSO should be able to run and conclude a PDP that “demands” whatever the cc community requires of ICANN. The same goes for the GNSO.
My main issue is that I don’t agree with your categorisation that a PDP it is not “subject to question”. The current process for policy development is a sound model. It was a hard-won, negotiated model that necessarily involves input from the rest of the community. A ccPDP includes commentary periods that allow the GNSO, At Large, governments and everyone else to contribute. It is also subject to clearance via the ICANN Board. We have a mechanism / system / process in place and the current Accountability work should not subvert it. It sounds awfully like a solution in search of a problem.
"Where a bylaws change arises from an SO PDP, has no impact on ICANN generally, and the budget impact is less than $x per year, the bylaws veto isn't available."
This is very dangerous territory. The question of whether an SO PDP “has no impact on ICANN generally” is subjective and open to all sorts of debate. Attempting to define what figure “$x per year” is even trickier. It will open up all sorts of arguments regarding community contribution, budget etc. Not a space the CCWG needs to get in to. Even with the very best intentions, if we are not careful, we risk undermining everything we have achieved so far as a community
In the end, our interest as cctld managers is to prevent ICANN affecting us and our operations. That's fair. What isn't fair is creating some fantastical right to claim on others' resources.
I don’t agree that our interest as cc managers is to prevent ICANN affecting us. That is a very protectionist position that I had hope we have moved beyond. Our interest is developing the most stable, secure and reliable model that we can all support, and bringing in to question the mechanisms we currently have in place is counter-productive (see my comments above) If we as a group of ccTLDs can't come to consensus, then there isn't going to be an accountability proposal and isn't going to be a transition.
At the risk of stating the obvious, at this important juncture, we need to steer clear of such dramatic categorisations. If we cant come to consensus, we all need to look critically at the options before us, negotiate further, and try to arrive at a model that works
Regards,
Paul
Paul Szyndler | General Manager, International and Government Affairs .au Domain Administration Limited T: +61 2 6292 5034 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 | M: +61 402 250 389 E: paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> Twitter: @auda <http://twitter.com/auda> | Blog: www.auda.org.au/blog/ <http://www.auda.org.au/blog/>
auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>] Sent: Saturday, 10 October 2015 11:53 AM To: sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> Cc: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels
I'd like to repeat my question. We have to think through the specifics and work out what we need to worry about, and what isn't a worry.
What say you? Do you think that the ccNSO should be able to run a PDP that demands, say, ICANN give a lot of money to ccTLD projects, and not have that subject to question?
I ask because getting specific about cases is the only way to rule things in or out, and to unlock any possibility of arriving at consensus.
If we as a group of ccTLDs can't come to consensus, then there isn't going to be an accountability proposal and isn't going to be a transition.
cheers Jordan
best Jordan
On 9 October 2015 at 22:52, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
Hi Stephen, all:
I've been very clear, most lately in a blog post today, that these issues need to be ironed out to consensus before a proposal goes anywhere.
But that means answering tough questions - and the biggest tough question here is whether or not PDP processes needs some quarantine around them.
For instance, I would support a restriction on the bylaws changes veto which said:
"Where a bylaws change arises from an SO PDP, has no impact on ICANN generally, and the budget impact is less than $x per year, the bylaws veto isn't available."
I support that because the intent of the accountability powers is *not* to interfere in PDPs. It is to exercise community control over ICANN and its overall operations.
A PDP with limited financial impact could be usefully excluded to make that clear.
But also, to be clear, aPDP by any SO that demanded a huge call on ICANN resources should in principle be able to be vetoed.
In the end, our interest as cctld managers is to prevent ICANN affecting us and our operations. That's fair. What isn't fair is creating some fantastical right to claim on others' resources.
What say you?
Cheers Jordan
On Friday, 9 October 2015, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>> wrote:
Jordan,
I don't think the GNSO would like to be in a position where the ccNSO could muster additional SO/AC support to kill off a PDP that they worked diligently on and got Board buy in for.
I think the ccNSO would not like this either.
So to me it's not a "hypothetical" but rather, how does the CCWG proposal manage this, because at the end of the day, we need buy-in from the SO/AC community for the CCWG proposal to go forward, and if there is not an accommodation with respect to SO/Board approved PDPs standing as ICANN policy, not subject to being shot down by other SO/AC members, how do you realistically expect the SOs to provide consensus for the CCWG proposal put forward to the Board, and subsequently, NITA?
Just asking…
Best Regards,
/Stephen
From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>] Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 4:52 AM To: sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> Cc: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels
Important point to think through, thank you for raising it!
We must be clear though: what motivation would there be for the entirety of the rest of the community to organise such a veto?
Because these are not casual powers.
Such a situation would surely only emerge if:
A) the bylaws change was very resource intensive, and
B) the ccnso had failed to engage the rest of the community in the logic of its case.
In the case of both of these together, why should the rest of the community not be able to say 'go away and think again'?
And in all other cases, the threshold to do a veto wouldn't be met.
The alternative would be to exempt SO PDPs from these rules. But why should that be the case if resources were affected?
Jordan
On Friday, 9 October 2015, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>> wrote:
Greetings Paul,
With respect to my earlier post, you write:
[---START---] With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question):
Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations. This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO. However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome involves a proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential objection by other parts of the community. This is not an inconceivable scenario. It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw changes are clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect). I see the potential that the current CCWG proposal would allow for intervention by other SOs and ACs. This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point). [---END--]
Thank you Paul for acknowledging that under the current proposal it is possible for a ccNSO PDP, adopted by the Board, to be later overturned by the Community at large.
Can I ask the CCWG members how they might think this is an acceptable situation for the ccNSO, and can I also ask, what do the CCWG members might have in mind to remedy this? I see a difficult road ahead for ccNSO consensus for the CCWG proposal as it currently stands.
Regards, Stephen Deerhake AS Domain Registry GDNS LLC +1 212 334 3660 <tel:%2B1%20212%20334%203660> +1 212 656 1983 <tel:%2B1%20212%20656%201983> sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> sdeerhake@gdns.net <mailto:sdeerhake@gdns.net>
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 Paul Szyndler Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 3:42 AM To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels
Thanks Jordan,
My questions were intentionally provocative in order to make clear my point about the need for ccTLD engagement. After all, I was responding to Eberhard’s question directly.
I acknowledge that consensus models are under consideration. But the voting model has not been discounted. As long as it is “on the table”, it is valid for me to use it as an example of an issue ccTLDs should be aware of.
With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question):
Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations. This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO. However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome involves a proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential objection by other parts of the community. This is not an inconceivable scenario. It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw changes are clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect). I see the potential that the current CCWG proposal would allow for intervention by other SOs and ACs. This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point).
The mechanisms of how it would be blocked, the distribution of voting rights and the likelihood of it occurring do not much matter in this case. The point is that there is the potential for a ccNSO PDP to be vetoed by others. The only alternative is to excise policy development processes from the currently-proposed accountability model, but would that defeat the purpose of the whole exercise?
This is just one example of the many strings that need to be brought together and addressed before we all agree on a new model for accountability for a post-NTIA ICANN.
Paul
From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>] Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 5:48 PM To: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>> Cc: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>>; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels
Hi all,
A comment or two re Paul's note below;
On Friday, 9 October 2015, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>> wrote:
Eberhard,
I have long appreciated your vehement and unflinching commitment to the independence and autonomy of ccTLDs. However, as cc managers, we constantly face the challenge of balancing this independence against the need for engagement with the broader stakeholder community.
I believe that the CCWG is one process we need to engage in. As cc managers, are we happy for "the rest" of the community to arrive at a solution for the future stewardship of ICANN (which includes a place for the ccNSO) without contributing to that process?
In whatever membership model the community may arrive at, we ultimately get down to the unsavoury detail of votes and voting mechanisms. Are you happy with a 5 of 29 voting structure?
Other models under discussion would see a consensus model rather than votes.
Are you supportive of a model that has the potential to "veto" a ccPDP?
This one is mystifying, since nobody has at any point suggested any possibility of this.
What is your novel interpretation of the ccwg's proposal that leads you to this curious conclusion? If you are going to assert the conclusion, I think it would be helpful to share the basis for it - mainly so that we can fix it so such a problem does not occur.
Irrespective of whether you answer "yes", "no" or "I don’t care", I believe that these issues are of sufficient significance to warrant our collective attention.
At no point have I seen anything in the Stewardship or Accountability processes that threatens the existing internal roles or responsibilities of ccTLD managers. However, I believe we need to be engaged in the broader ecosystem because these potential changes will have an effect on how each of us can influence our environment in the future.
Agree.
Jordan
Perhaps I could turn your question back to you. I note that you have devoted considerable time, effort and intellectual capacity to the CCWG. Assuming that the CCWG report doesn’t affect ccTLDs directly, what is it about this process that has warranted your dedicated engagement?
Regards,
Paul