Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5e4d1dbbab6112a236ffc5b284bf4cb6.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Jonathan/All Attached is the draft statement compiled by Avri and I on the IANA transition process. Comments welcome. Regards Tony
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f755f30220a861bbc291a501e8ceb950.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
I would be happy to support that statement. David On 23 Feb 2015, at 3:39 am, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> wrote:
Jonathan/All Attached is the draft statement compiled by Avri and I on the IANA transition process. Comments welcome. Regards Tony
<GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.zip>
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a011bfa922f20b6705e4f348fcece303.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Thanks Tony & Avri, Please see my suggested edits contained in the attached redline version. Jonathan From: David Cake [mailto:dave@difference.com.au] Sent: 23 February 2015 10:11 To: Tony Holmes; <council@gnso.icann.org> List Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition I would be happy to support that statement. David On 23 Feb 2015, at 3:39 am, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> wrote: Jonathan/All Attached is the draft statement compiled by Avri and I on the IANA transition process. Comments welcome. Regards Tony <GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.zip>
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a011bfa922f20b6705e4f348fcece303.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Attached in .pdf if easier to read on some devices. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 23 February 2015 11:37 To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Tony & Avri, Please see my suggested edits contained in the attached redline version. Jonathan From: David Cake [mailto:dave@difference.com.au] Sent: 23 February 2015 10:11 To: Tony Holmes; <council@gnso.icann.org> List Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition I would be happy to support that statement. David On 23 Feb 2015, at 3:39 am, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> wrote: Jonathan/All Attached is the draft statement compiled by Avri and I on the IANA transition process. Comments welcome. Regards Tony <GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.zip>
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3d2bcff155e9918f792a447b74362994.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Thanks for the edits, Jonathan. Happy to also lend my support to this statement. Thanks again. Amr On Feb 23, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
Attached in .pdf if easier to read on some devices.
Jonathan
From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 23 February 2015 11:37 To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition
Thanks Tony & Avri,
Please see my suggested edits contained in the attached redline version.
Jonathan
From: David Cake [mailto:dave@difference.com.au] Sent: 23 February 2015 10:11 To: Tony Holmes; <council@gnso.icann.org> List Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition
I would be happy to support that statement.
David
On 23 Feb 2015, at 3:39 am, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> wrote:
Jonathan/All Attached is the draft statement compiled by Avri and I on the IANA transition process. Comments welcome. Regards Tony
<GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.zip>
<GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.docx><GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft (3).pdf>
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/206115f56bb561368ae10d9d47fe0cca.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Excelent statement Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone
El feb 23, 2015, a las 5:47, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> escribió:
Attached in .pdf if easier to read on some devices.
Jonathan
From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 23 February 2015 11:37 To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition
Thanks Tony & Avri,
Please see my suggested edits contained in the attached redline version.
Jonathan
From: David Cake [mailto:dave@difference.com.au] Sent: 23 February 2015 10:11 To: Tony Holmes; <council@gnso.icann.org> List Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition
I would be happy to support that statement.
David
On 23 Feb 2015, at 3:39 am, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> wrote:
Jonathan/All Attached is the draft statement compiled by Avri and I on the IANA transition process. Comments welcome. Regards Tony
<GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.zip>
<GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.docx> <GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft (3).pdf>
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hi folks: I made a very minor tweak to Jonathan's version. Hopefully this is acceptable to all. Summary -Modified the last line to read: "Given it's co-ordination and policy management role within the GNSO, the GNSO Council remains committed assisting the work within CWG, CCWG and the ICG in order that the community may ultimately deliver a sound, comprehensive and consensus proposal for the transition of the IANA function and one that will uphold the principles set forth in the NTIA announcement, and fully meet the needs of the global Internet community." I also note that the entire final paragraph is a single sentence, but this doesn't bother me so long as everyone else is ok with it! :) Thanks! J. From: "Carlos Raúl G." <crg@isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org>> Date: Monday, February 23, 2015 at 8:01 To: "<jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>" <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Cc: David Cake <dave@difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Excelent statement Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone El feb 23, 2015, a las 5:47, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> escribió: Attached in .pdf if easier to read on some devices. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 23 February 2015 11:37 To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Tony & Avri, Please see my suggested edits contained in the attached redline version. Jonathan From: David Cake [mailto:dave@difference.com.au] Sent: 23 February 2015 10:11 To: Tony Holmes; <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> List Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition I would be happy to support that statement. David On 23 Feb 2015, at 3:39 am, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>> wrote: Jonathan/All Attached is the draft statement compiled by Avri and I on the IANA transition process. Comments welcome. Regards Tony <GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.zip> <GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.docx> <GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft (3).pdf>
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2247ba9cb9c25b037f3f1648103ddf89.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
I am fine with this Dan From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 9:15 AM To: Carlos Raúl G. ; <jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: David Cake; Tony Holmes; <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Hi folks: I made a very minor tweak to Jonathan's version. Hopefully this is acceptable to all. Summary -Modified the last line to read: "Given it's co-ordination and policy management role within the GNSO, the GNSO Council remains committed assisting the work within CWG, CCWG and the ICG in order that the community may ultimately deliver a sound, comprehensive and consensus proposal for the transition of the IANA function and one that will uphold the principles set forth in the NTIA announcement, and fully meet the needs of the global Internet community." I also note that the entire final paragraph is a single sentence, but this doesn't bother me so long as everyone else is ok with it! :) Thanks! J. From: "Carlos Raúl G." <crg@isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org>> Date: Monday, February 23, 2015 at 8:01 To: "<jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>" <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Cc: David Cake <dave@difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Excelent statement Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone El feb 23, 2015, a las 5:47, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> escribió: Attached in .pdf if easier to read on some devices. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 23 February 2015 11:37 To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Tony & Avri, Please see my suggested edits contained in the attached redline version. Jonathan From: David Cake [mailto:dave@difference.com.au] Sent: 23 February 2015 10:11 To: Tony Holmes; <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> List Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition I would be happy to support that statement. David On 23 Feb 2015, at 3:39 am, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>> wrote: Jonathan/All Attached is the draft statement compiled by Avri and I on the IANA transition process. Comments welcome. Regards Tony <GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.zip> <GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.docx> <GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft (3).pdf>
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a0e887f526a0a32cf1a8489911bb55cf.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Jonathan: Members of the Business Constituency seem to be generally supportive of the sentiments contained in the draft Statement. However, I am being asked two questions in regard to it: 1. What is the overall purpose of issuing the Statement? 2. What is the effect of a Constituency endorsing the statement - and, in particular, does it replace the views of any constituency or SG or preclude a more nuanced and detailed future statement by them? Once I have those answers I should be able to indicate whether the BC can support and/or be listed as a signatory. Thanks and best regards, Philip PS-This paragraph of the Statement, as modified by you and James, has two typos: "Given [it's] its co-ordination and policy management role within the GNSO, the GNSO Council remains committed to assisting the work within CWG, CCWG and the ICG in order that the community may ultimately deliver a sound, comprehensive and consensus proposal for the transition of the IANA function and one that will uphold the principles set forth in the NTIA announcement, and fully meet the needs of the global Internet community." Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 6:47 AM To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Attached in .pdf if easier to read on some devices. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 23 February 2015 11:37 To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Tony & Avri, Please see my suggested edits contained in the attached redline version. Jonathan From: David Cake [mailto:dave@difference.com.au] Sent: 23 February 2015 10:11 To: Tony Holmes; <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> List Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition I would be happy to support that statement. David On 23 Feb 2015, at 3:39 am, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>> wrote: Jonathan/All Attached is the draft statement compiled by Avri and I on the IANA transition process. Comments welcome. Regards Tony <GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.zip> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9131 - Release Date: 02/17/15
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a011bfa922f20b6705e4f348fcece303.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Thanks Philip, Regarding the two questions below, my understanding is as follows: 1. The purpose of the statement is to provide some positive support for the work of the CWG in a context where many appeared to be questioning the extent or effectiveness of the work of the CWG. It was felt that it would be helpful to the CWG (and to the broader community perceptions of the CWG) to have a supportive statement by one of the initiating and chartering organisations i.e. recognising the effort to date. 2. The effect of endorsing the statement is primarily to support the view of the Council in the proper way i.e. instead of the Council simply issuing the statement on its own behalf, the Council appropriately refers the statement to constituencies and SGs. A secondary benefit of reviewing the statement is the ongoing raising of the awareness of the current status of the work of the CWG within the GNSO community such that the GNSO community is in a state of readiness to appraise (and ideally support) the final proposal of the CWG when it does come out. They are an interesting pair of questions in the context of my edits to the original Tony / Avri draft in that I modified the statement to be more of a GNSO Council statement as opposed to a GNSO statement. Arguably, in the former case, the Councillors could simply support the statement and the GNSO Council issue it. Nevertheless, in my view, it is always preferable to have such a statement or similar piece of work referred to the SG / Cs and supported by those SG / Cs. I trust that helps. Jonathan From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: 23 February 2015 22:59 To: jrobinson@afilias.info; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Importance: High Jonathan: Members of the Business Constituency seem to be generally supportive of the sentiments contained in the draft Statement. However, I am being asked two questions in regard to it: 1. What is the overall purpose of issuing the Statement? 2. What is the effect of a Constituency endorsing the statement - and, in particular, does it replace the views of any constituency or SG or preclude a more nuanced and detailed future statement by them? Once I have those answers I should be able to indicate whether the BC can support and/or be listed as a signatory. Thanks and best regards, Philip PS-This paragraph of the Statement, as modified by you and James, has two typos: "Given [it's] its co-ordination and policy management role within the GNSO, the GNSO Council remains committed to assisting the work within CWG, CCWG and the ICG in order that the community may ultimately deliver a sound, comprehensive and consensus proposal for the transition of the IANA function and one that will uphold the principles set forth in the NTIA announcement, and fully meet the needs of the global Internet community." Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 6:47 AM To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Attached in .pdf if easier to read on some devices. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 23 February 2015 11:37 To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Tony & Avri, Please see my suggested edits contained in the attached redline version. Jonathan From: David Cake [mailto:dave@difference.com.au] Sent: 23 February 2015 10:11 To: Tony Holmes; <council@gnso.icann.org> List Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition I would be happy to support that statement. David On 23 Feb 2015, at 3:39 am, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> wrote: Jonathan/All Attached is the draft statement compiled by Avri and I on the IANA transition process. Comments welcome. Regards Tony <GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.zip> _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9131 - Release Date: 02/17/15
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a0e887f526a0a32cf1a8489911bb55cf.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Thanks Jonathan. I'll pass this along to the BC and get back to you ASAP. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:12 AM To: Phil Corwin; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Philip, Regarding the two questions below, my understanding is as follows: 1. The purpose of the statement is to provide some positive support for the work of the CWG in a context where many appeared to be questioning the extent or effectiveness of the work of the CWG. It was felt that it would be helpful to the CWG (and to the broader community perceptions of the CWG) to have a supportive statement by one of the initiating and chartering organisations i.e. recognising the effort to date. 2. The effect of endorsing the statement is primarily to support the view of the Council in the proper way i.e. instead of the Council simply issuing the statement on its own behalf, the Council appropriately refers the statement to constituencies and SGs. A secondary benefit of reviewing the statement is the ongoing raising of the awareness of the current status of the work of the CWG within the GNSO community such that the GNSO community is in a state of readiness to appraise (and ideally support) the final proposal of the CWG when it does come out. They are an interesting pair of questions in the context of my edits to the original Tony / Avri draft in that I modified the statement to be more of a GNSO Council statement as opposed to a GNSO statement. Arguably, in the former case, the Councillors could simply support the statement and the GNSO Council issue it. Nevertheless, in my view, it is always preferable to have such a statement or similar piece of work referred to the SG / Cs and supported by those SG / Cs. I trust that helps. Jonathan From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: 23 February 2015 22:59 To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Importance: High Jonathan: Members of the Business Constituency seem to be generally supportive of the sentiments contained in the draft Statement. However, I am being asked two questions in regard to it: 1. What is the overall purpose of issuing the Statement? 2. What is the effect of a Constituency endorsing the statement - and, in particular, does it replace the views of any constituency or SG or preclude a more nuanced and detailed future statement by them? Once I have those answers I should be able to indicate whether the BC can support and/or be listed as a signatory. Thanks and best regards, Philip PS-This paragraph of the Statement, as modified by you and James, has two typos: "Given [it's] its co-ordination and policy management role within the GNSO, the GNSO Council remains committed to assisting the work within CWG, CCWG and the ICG in order that the community may ultimately deliver a sound, comprehensive and consensus proposal for the transition of the IANA function and one that will uphold the principles set forth in the NTIA announcement, and fully meet the needs of the global Internet community." Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 6:47 AM To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Attached in .pdf if easier to read on some devices. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 23 February 2015 11:37 To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Tony & Avri, Please see my suggested edits contained in the attached redline version. Jonathan From: David Cake [mailto:dave@difference.com.au] Sent: 23 February 2015 10:11 To: Tony Holmes; <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> List Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition I would be happy to support that statement. David On 23 Feb 2015, at 3:39 am, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>> wrote: Jonathan/All Attached is the draft statement compiled by Avri and I on the IANA transition process. Comments welcome. Regards Tony <GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.zip> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9131 - Release Date: 02/17/15 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9131 - Release Date: 02/17/15
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a011bfa922f20b6705e4f348fcece303.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
All, In the Registries SG meeting yesterday, there was pushback against this statement. Not with regard to the content as such but rather to the timing. If you recall, this was planned to be sent our pre-ICANN 52 and made good sense then. Reinforced by the concerns we heard over the progress of the CWG in Singapore. Someone had good foresight pre ICANN 52 - but the key question - does it still make sense / add value? Or, does it make us look behind the times? Jonathan From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: 24 February 2015 13:40 To: jrobinson@afilias.info; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Jonathan. I'll pass this along to the BC and get back to you ASAP. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:12 AM To: Phil Corwin; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Philip, Regarding the two questions below, my understanding is as follows: 1. The purpose of the statement is to provide some positive support for the work of the CWG in a context where many appeared to be questioning the extent or effectiveness of the work of the CWG. It was felt that it would be helpful to the CWG (and to the broader community perceptions of the CWG) to have a supportive statement by one of the initiating and chartering organisations i.e. recognising the effort to date. 2. The effect of endorsing the statement is primarily to support the view of the Council in the proper way i.e. instead of the Council simply issuing the statement on its own behalf, the Council appropriately refers the statement to constituencies and SGs. A secondary benefit of reviewing the statement is the ongoing raising of the awareness of the current status of the work of the CWG within the GNSO community such that the GNSO community is in a state of readiness to appraise (and ideally support) the final proposal of the CWG when it does come out. They are an interesting pair of questions in the context of my edits to the original Tony / Avri draft in that I modified the statement to be more of a GNSO Council statement as opposed to a GNSO statement. Arguably, in the former case, the Councillors could simply support the statement and the GNSO Council issue it. Nevertheless, in my view, it is always preferable to have such a statement or similar piece of work referred to the SG / Cs and supported by those SG / Cs. I trust that helps. Jonathan From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: 23 February 2015 22:59 To: jrobinson@afilias.info; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Importance: High Jonathan: Members of the Business Constituency seem to be generally supportive of the sentiments contained in the draft Statement. However, I am being asked two questions in regard to it: 1. What is the overall purpose of issuing the Statement? 2. What is the effect of a Constituency endorsing the statement - and, in particular, does it replace the views of any constituency or SG or preclude a more nuanced and detailed future statement by them? Once I have those answers I should be able to indicate whether the BC can support and/or be listed as a signatory. Thanks and best regards, Philip PS-This paragraph of the Statement, as modified by you and James, has two typos: "Given [it's] its co-ordination and policy management role within the GNSO, the GNSO Council remains committed to assisting the work within CWG, CCWG and the ICG in order that the community may ultimately deliver a sound, comprehensive and consensus proposal for the transition of the IANA function and one that will uphold the principles set forth in the NTIA announcement, and fully meet the needs of the global Internet community." Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 6:47 AM To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Attached in .pdf if easier to read on some devices. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 23 February 2015 11:37 To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Tony & Avri, Please see my suggested edits contained in the attached redline version. Jonathan From: David Cake [mailto:dave@difference.com.au] Sent: 23 February 2015 10:11 To: Tony Holmes; <council@gnso.icann.org> List Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition I would be happy to support that statement. David On 23 Feb 2015, at 3:39 am, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> wrote: Jonathan/All Attached is the draft statement compiled by Avri and I on the IANA transition process. Comments welcome. Regards Tony <GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.zip> _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9131 - Release Date: 02/17/15 _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9131 - Release Date: 02/17/15
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a0e887f526a0a32cf1a8489911bb55cf.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Jonathan: Again, thank for your response. I am now authorized to endorse the statement on behalf of the Business Constituency. So far as timing, we think it can still be of value to the CWG and CCWG. Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:30 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition All, In the Registries SG meeting yesterday, there was pushback against this statement. Not with regard to the content as such but rather to the timing. If you recall, this was planned to be sent our pre-ICANN 52 and made good sense then. Reinforced by the concerns we heard over the progress of the CWG in Singapore. Someone had good foresight pre ICANN 52 - but the key question - does it still make sense / add value? Or, does it make us look behind the times? Jonathan From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: 24 February 2015 13:40 To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Jonathan. I'll pass this along to the BC and get back to you ASAP. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:12 AM To: Phil Corwin; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Philip, Regarding the two questions below, my understanding is as follows: 1. The purpose of the statement is to provide some positive support for the work of the CWG in a context where many appeared to be questioning the extent or effectiveness of the work of the CWG. It was felt that it would be helpful to the CWG (and to the broader community perceptions of the CWG) to have a supportive statement by one of the initiating and chartering organisations i.e. recognising the effort to date. 2. The effect of endorsing the statement is primarily to support the view of the Council in the proper way i.e. instead of the Council simply issuing the statement on its own behalf, the Council appropriately refers the statement to constituencies and SGs. A secondary benefit of reviewing the statement is the ongoing raising of the awareness of the current status of the work of the CWG within the GNSO community such that the GNSO community is in a state of readiness to appraise (and ideally support) the final proposal of the CWG when it does come out. They are an interesting pair of questions in the context of my edits to the original Tony / Avri draft in that I modified the statement to be more of a GNSO Council statement as opposed to a GNSO statement. Arguably, in the former case, the Councillors could simply support the statement and the GNSO Council issue it. Nevertheless, in my view, it is always preferable to have such a statement or similar piece of work referred to the SG / Cs and supported by those SG / Cs. I trust that helps. Jonathan From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: 23 February 2015 22:59 To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Importance: High Jonathan: Members of the Business Constituency seem to be generally supportive of the sentiments contained in the draft Statement. However, I am being asked two questions in regard to it: 1. What is the overall purpose of issuing the Statement? 2. What is the effect of a Constituency endorsing the statement - and, in particular, does it replace the views of any constituency or SG or preclude a more nuanced and detailed future statement by them? Once I have those answers I should be able to indicate whether the BC can support and/or be listed as a signatory. Thanks and best regards, Philip PS-This paragraph of the Statement, as modified by you and James, has two typos: "Given [it's] its co-ordination and policy management role within the GNSO, the GNSO Council remains committed to assisting the work within CWG, CCWG and the ICG in order that the community may ultimately deliver a sound, comprehensive and consensus proposal for the transition of the IANA function and one that will uphold the principles set forth in the NTIA announcement, and fully meet the needs of the global Internet community." Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 6:47 AM To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Attached in .pdf if easier to read on some devices. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 23 February 2015 11:37 To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Tony & Avri, Please see my suggested edits contained in the attached redline version. Jonathan From: David Cake [mailto:dave@difference.com.au] Sent: 23 February 2015 10:11 To: Tony Holmes; <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> List Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition I would be happy to support that statement. David On 23 Feb 2015, at 3:39 am, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>> wrote: Jonathan/All Attached is the draft statement compiled by Avri and I on the IANA transition process. Comments welcome. Regards Tony <GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.zip> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9131 - Release Date: 02/17/15 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9131 - Release Date: 02/17/15 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4299/9172 - Release Date: 02/24/15
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Jonathan and Councilors: I see your point regarding the timing. Should we hold off until the next major milestone/announcement from these groups? Note that the nature of their next milestone may cause us to want to revisit the content of our statement. Thanks— J. From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 9:29 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition All, In the Registries SG meeting yesterday, there was pushback against this statement. Not with regard to the content as such but rather to the timing. If you recall, this was planned to be sent our pre-ICANN 52 and made good sense then. Reinforced by the concerns we heard over the progress of the CWG in Singapore. Someone had good foresight pre ICANN 52 - but the key question - does it still make sense / add value? Or, does it make us look behind the times? Jonathan From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: 24 February 2015 13:40 To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Jonathan. I’ll pass this along to the BC and get back to you ASAP. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:12 AM To: Phil Corwin; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Philip, Regarding the two questions below, my understanding is as follows: 1. The purpose of the statement is to provide some positive support for the work of the CWG in a context where many appeared to be questioning the extent or effectiveness of the work of the CWG. It was felt that it would be helpful to the CWG (and to the broader community perceptions of the CWG) to have a supportive statement by one of the initiating and chartering organisations i.e. recognising the effort to date. 2. The effect of endorsing the statement is primarily to support the view of the Council in the proper way i.e. instead of the Council simply issuing the statement on its own behalf, the Council appropriately refers the statement to constituencies and SGs. A secondary benefit of reviewing the statement is the ongoing raising of the awareness of the current status of the work of the CWG within the GNSO community such that the GNSO community is in a state of readiness to appraise (and ideally support) the final proposal of the CWG when it does come out. They are an interesting pair of questions in the context of my edits to the original Tony / Avri draft in that I modified the statement to be more of a GNSO Council statement as opposed to a GNSO statement. Arguably, in the former case, the Councillors could simply support the statement and the GNSO Council issue it. Nevertheless, in my view, it is always preferable to have such a statement or similar piece of work referred to the SG / Cs and supported by those SG / Cs. I trust that helps. Jonathan From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: 23 February 2015 22:59 To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Importance: High Jonathan: Members of the Business Constituency seem to be generally supportive of the sentiments contained in the draft Statement. However, I am being asked two questions in regard to it: 1. What is the overall purpose of issuing the Statement? 2. What is the effect of a Constituency endorsing the statement – and, in particular, does it replace the views of any constituency or SG or preclude a more nuanced and detailed future statement by them? Once I have those answers I should be able to indicate whether the BC can support and/or be listed as a signatory. Thanks and best regards, Philip PS—This paragraph of the Statement, as modified by you and James, has two typos: "Given [it’s] its co-ordination and policy management role within the GNSO, the GNSO Council remains committed to assisting the work within CWG, CCWG and the ICG in order that the community may ultimately deliver a sound, comprehensive and consensus proposal for the transition of the IANA function and one that will uphold the principles set forth in the NTIA announcement, and fully meet the needs of the global Internet community." Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 6:47 AM To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Attached in .pdf if easier to read on some devices. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 23 February 2015 11:37 To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Tony & Avri, Please see my suggested edits contained in the attached redline version. Jonathan From: David Cake [mailto:dave@difference.com.au] Sent: 23 February 2015 10:11 To: Tony Holmes; <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> List Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition I would be happy to support that statement. David On 23 Feb 2015, at 3:39 am, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>> wrote: Jonathan/All Attached is the draft statement compiled by Avri and I on the IANA transition process. Comments welcome. Regards Tony <GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.zip> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9131 - Release Date: 02/17/15 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9131 - Release Date: 02/17/15
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5e4d1dbbab6112a236ffc5b284bf4cb6.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Jonathan Whilst I accept it would have been preferable to submit this earlier, it would still provide better optics for the GNSO to be publicly supportive of the process, rather than silent. Regards Tony From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: 26 February 2015 15:30 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition All, In the Registries SG meeting yesterday, there was pushback against this statement. Not with regard to the content as such but rather to the timing. If you recall, this was planned to be sent our pre-ICANN 52 and made good sense then. Reinforced by the concerns we heard over the progress of the CWG in Singapore. Someone had good foresight pre ICANN 52 - but the key question - does it still make sense / add value? Or, does it make us look behind the times? Jonathan From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: 24 February 2015 13:40 To: jrobinson@afilias.info; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Jonathan. I'll pass this along to the BC and get back to you ASAP. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:12 AM To: Phil Corwin; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Philip, Regarding the two questions below, my understanding is as follows: 1. The purpose of the statement is to provide some positive support for the work of the CWG in a context where many appeared to be questioning the extent or effectiveness of the work of the CWG. It was felt that it would be helpful to the CWG (and to the broader community perceptions of the CWG) to have a supportive statement by one of the initiating and chartering organisations i.e. recognising the effort to date. 2. The effect of endorsing the statement is primarily to support the view of the Council in the proper way i.e. instead of the Council simply issuing the statement on its own behalf, the Council appropriately refers the statement to constituencies and SGs. A secondary benefit of reviewing the statement is the ongoing raising of the awareness of the current status of the work of the CWG within the GNSO community such that the GNSO community is in a state of readiness to appraise (and ideally support) the final proposal of the CWG when it does come out. They are an interesting pair of questions in the context of my edits to the original Tony / Avri draft in that I modified the statement to be more of a GNSO Council statement as opposed to a GNSO statement. Arguably, in the former case, the Councillors could simply support the statement and the GNSO Council issue it. Nevertheless, in my view, it is always preferable to have such a statement or similar piece of work referred to the SG / Cs and supported by those SG / Cs. I trust that helps. Jonathan From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: 23 February 2015 22:59 To: jrobinson@afilias.info; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Importance: High Jonathan: Members of the Business Constituency seem to be generally supportive of the sentiments contained in the draft Statement. However, I am being asked two questions in regard to it: 1. What is the overall purpose of issuing the Statement? 2. What is the effect of a Constituency endorsing the statement - and, in particular, does it replace the views of any constituency or SG or preclude a more nuanced and detailed future statement by them? Once I have those answers I should be able to indicate whether the BC can support and/or be listed as a signatory. Thanks and best regards, Philip PS-This paragraph of the Statement, as modified by you and James, has two typos: "Given [it's] its co-ordination and policy management role within the GNSO, the GNSO Council remains committed to assisting the work within CWG, CCWG and the ICG in order that the community may ultimately deliver a sound, comprehensive and consensus proposal for the transition of the IANA function and one that will uphold the principles set forth in the NTIA announcement, and fully meet the needs of the global Internet community." Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 6:47 AM To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Attached in .pdf if easier to read on some devices. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 23 February 2015 11:37 To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Tony & Avri, Please see my suggested edits contained in the attached redline version. Jonathan From: David Cake [mailto:dave@difference.com.au] Sent: 23 February 2015 10:11 To: Tony Holmes; <council@gnso.icann.org> List Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition I would be happy to support that statement. David On 23 Feb 2015, at 3:39 am, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> wrote: Jonathan/All Attached is the draft statement compiled by Avri and I on the IANA transition process. Comments welcome. Regards Tony <GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.zip> _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9131 - Release Date: 02/17/15 _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9131 - Release Date: 02/17/15
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a011bfa922f20b6705e4f348fcece303.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Thanks All, We will plan to: 1. Post it to the GNSO website 2. Send it to the CWG And 3. We could also send to other CWG chartering organisations? Jonathan From: Tony Holmes [mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com] Sent: 27 February 2015 07:36 To: jrobinson@afilias.info; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Jonathan Whilst I accept it would have been preferable to submit this earlier, it would still provide better optics for the GNSO to be publicly supportive of the process, rather than silent. Regards Tony From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: 26 February 2015 15:30 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition All, In the Registries SG meeting yesterday, there was pushback against this statement. Not with regard to the content as such but rather to the timing. If you recall, this was planned to be sent our pre-ICANN 52 and made good sense then. Reinforced by the concerns we heard over the progress of the CWG in Singapore. Someone had good foresight pre ICANN 52 - but the key question - does it still make sense / add value? Or, does it make us look behind the times? Jonathan From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: 24 February 2015 13:40 To: jrobinson@afilias.info; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Jonathan. I'll pass this along to the BC and get back to you ASAP. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:12 AM To: Phil Corwin; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Philip, Regarding the two questions below, my understanding is as follows: 1. The purpose of the statement is to provide some positive support for the work of the CWG in a context where many appeared to be questioning the extent or effectiveness of the work of the CWG. It was felt that it would be helpful to the CWG (and to the broader community perceptions of the CWG) to have a supportive statement by one of the initiating and chartering organisations i.e. recognising the effort to date. 2. The effect of endorsing the statement is primarily to support the view of the Council in the proper way i.e. instead of the Council simply issuing the statement on its own behalf, the Council appropriately refers the statement to constituencies and SGs. A secondary benefit of reviewing the statement is the ongoing raising of the awareness of the current status of the work of the CWG within the GNSO community such that the GNSO community is in a state of readiness to appraise (and ideally support) the final proposal of the CWG when it does come out. They are an interesting pair of questions in the context of my edits to the original Tony / Avri draft in that I modified the statement to be more of a GNSO Council statement as opposed to a GNSO statement. Arguably, in the former case, the Councillors could simply support the statement and the GNSO Council issue it. Nevertheless, in my view, it is always preferable to have such a statement or similar piece of work referred to the SG / Cs and supported by those SG / Cs. I trust that helps. Jonathan From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: 23 February 2015 22:59 To: jrobinson@afilias.info; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Importance: High Jonathan: Members of the Business Constituency seem to be generally supportive of the sentiments contained in the draft Statement. However, I am being asked two questions in regard to it: 1. What is the overall purpose of issuing the Statement? 2. What is the effect of a Constituency endorsing the statement - and, in particular, does it replace the views of any constituency or SG or preclude a more nuanced and detailed future statement by them? Once I have those answers I should be able to indicate whether the BC can support and/or be listed as a signatory. Thanks and best regards, Philip PS-This paragraph of the Statement, as modified by you and James, has two typos: "Given [it's] its co-ordination and policy management role within the GNSO, the GNSO Council remains committed to assisting the work within CWG, CCWG and the ICG in order that the community may ultimately deliver a sound, comprehensive and consensus proposal for the transition of the IANA function and one that will uphold the principles set forth in the NTIA announcement, and fully meet the needs of the global Internet community." Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 6:47 AM To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Attached in .pdf if easier to read on some devices. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 23 February 2015 11:37 To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Tony & Avri, Please see my suggested edits contained in the attached redline version. Jonathan From: David Cake [mailto:dave@difference.com.au] Sent: 23 February 2015 10:11 To: Tony Holmes; <council@gnso.icann.org> List Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition I would be happy to support that statement. David On 23 Feb 2015, at 3:39 am, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> wrote: Jonathan/All Attached is the draft statement compiled by Avri and I on the IANA transition process. Comments welcome. Regards Tony <GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.zip> _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9131 - Release Date: 02/17/15 _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9131 - Release Date: 02/17/15
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3d2bcff155e9918f792a447b74362994.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Agree with Tony. Thanks. Amr On Feb 27, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> wrote:
Jonathan Whilst I accept it would have been preferable to submit this earlier, it would still provide better optics for the GNSO to be publicly supportive of the process, rather than silent. Regards Tony
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: 26 February 2015 15:30 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition
All,
In the Registries SG meeting yesterday, there was pushback against this statement. Not with regard to the content as such but rather to the timing.
If you recall, this was planned to be sent our pre-ICANN 52 and made good sense then. Reinforced by the concerns we heard over the progress of the CWG in Singapore.
Someone had good foresight pre ICANN 52 - but the key question - does it still make sense / add value?
Or, does it make us look behind the times?
Jonathan
From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: 24 February 2015 13:40 To: jrobinson@afilias.info; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition
Thanks Jonathan. I’ll pass this along to the BC and get back to you ASAP.
Best, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:12 AM To: Phil Corwin; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition
Thanks Philip,
Regarding the two questions below, my understanding is as follows:
1. The purpose of the statement is to provide some positive support for the work of the CWG in a context where many appeared to be questioning the extent or effectiveness of the work of the CWG. It was felt that it would be helpful to the CWG (and to the broader community perceptions of the CWG) to have a supportive statement by one of the initiating and chartering organisations i.e. recognising the effort to date. 2. The effect of endorsing the statement is primarily to support the view of the Council in the proper way i.e. instead of the Council simply issuing the statement on its own behalf, the Council appropriately refers the statement to constituencies and SGs. A secondary benefit of reviewing the statement is the ongoing raising of the awareness of the current status of the work of the CWG within the GNSO community such that the GNSO community is in a state of readiness to appraise (and ideally support) the final proposal of the CWG when it does come out.
They are an interesting pair of questions in the context of my edits to the original Tony / Avri draft in that I modified the statement to be more of a GNSO Council statement as opposed to a GNSO statement. Arguably, in the former case, the Councillors could simply support the statement and the GNSO Council issue it. Nevertheless, in my view, it is always preferable to have such a statement or similar piece of work referred to the SG / Cs and supported by those SG / Cs.
I trust that helps.
Jonathan
From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: 23 February 2015 22:59 To: jrobinson@afilias.info; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Importance: High
Jonathan:
Members of the Business Constituency seem to be generally supportive of the sentiments contained in the draft Statement. However, I am being asked two questions in regard to it: 1. What is the overall purpose of issuing the Statement? 2. What is the effect of a Constituency endorsing the statement – and, in particular, does it replace the views of any constituency or SG or preclude a more nuanced and detailed future statement by them?
Once I have those answers I should be able to indicate whether the BC can support and/or be listed as a signatory.
Thanks and best regards, Philip
PS—This paragraph of the Statement, as modified by you and James, has two typos: "Given [it’s] its co-ordination and policy management role within the GNSO, the GNSO Council remains committed to assisting the work within CWG, CCWG and the ICG in order that the community may ultimately deliver a sound, comprehensive and consensus proposal for the transition of the IANA function and one that will uphold the principles set forth in the NTIA announcement, and fully meet the needs of the global Internet community."
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 6:47 AM To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition
Attached in .pdf if easier to read on some devices.
Jonathan
From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 23 February 2015 11:37 To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition
Thanks Tony & Avri,
Please see my suggested edits contained in the attached redline version.
Jonathan
From: David Cake [mailto:dave@difference.com.au] Sent: 23 February 2015 10:11 To: Tony Holmes; <council@gnso.icann.org> List Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition
I would be happy to support that statement.
David
On 23 Feb 2015, at 3:39 am, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> wrote:
Jonathan/All Attached is the draft statement compiled by Avri and I on the IANA transition process. Comments welcome. Regards Tony
<GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.zip>
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9131 - Release Date: 02/17/15 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9131 - Release Date: 02/17/15
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5da22252ded9efbcab0179dc3b2a6f92.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hi Jonathan/all, Just a more general comment to this topic/process- Within CENTR we recently came up a fast response mechanism which means we can put a comment/position within a very short timeframe (within days generally) allowing members to opt-out if desired. I wonder if a similar mechanism would be useful for the GNSO to help with speed? I've attached our process (call BoD statement - fast tracked). I do realise the structural differences between CENTR and the GNSO however thought a tweaked version of our process might provide inspiration for the GNSO. Or perhaps you've already tried something like that? Regards Patrick From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Tuesday, 24 February 2015 7:12 PM To: 'Phil Corwin'; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Philip, Regarding the two questions below, my understanding is as follows: 1. The purpose of the statement is to provide some positive support for the work of the CWG in a context where many appeared to be questioning the extent or effectiveness of the work of the CWG. It was felt that it would be helpful to the CWG (and to the broader community perceptions of the CWG) to have a supportive statement by one of the initiating and chartering organisations i.e. recognising the effort to date. 2. The effect of endorsing the statement is primarily to support the view of the Council in the proper way i.e. instead of the Council simply issuing the statement on its own behalf, the Council appropriately refers the statement to constituencies and SGs. A secondary benefit of reviewing the statement is the ongoing raising of the awareness of the current status of the work of the CWG within the GNSO community such that the GNSO community is in a state of readiness to appraise (and ideally support) the final proposal of the CWG when it does come out. They are an interesting pair of questions in the context of my edits to the original Tony / Avri draft in that I modified the statement to be more of a GNSO Council statement as opposed to a GNSO statement. Arguably, in the former case, the Councillors could simply support the statement and the GNSO Council issue it. Nevertheless, in my view, it is always preferable to have such a statement or similar piece of work referred to the SG / Cs and supported by those SG / Cs. I trust that helps. Jonathan From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: 23 February 2015 22:59 To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Importance: High Jonathan: Members of the Business Constituency seem to be generally supportive of the sentiments contained in the draft Statement. However, I am being asked two questions in regard to it: 1. What is the overall purpose of issuing the Statement? 2. What is the effect of a Constituency endorsing the statement - and, in particular, does it replace the views of any constituency or SG or preclude a more nuanced and detailed future statement by them? Once I have those answers I should be able to indicate whether the BC can support and/or be listed as a signatory. Thanks and best regards, Philip PS-This paragraph of the Statement, as modified by you and James, has two typos: "Given [it's] its co-ordination and policy management role within the GNSO, the GNSO Council remains committed to assisting the work within CWG, CCWG and the ICG in order that the community may ultimately deliver a sound, comprehensive and consensus proposal for the transition of the IANA function and one that will uphold the principles set forth in the NTIA announcement, and fully meet the needs of the global Internet community." Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 6:47 AM To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Attached in .pdf if easier to read on some devices. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 23 February 2015 11:37 To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Tony & Avri, Please see my suggested edits contained in the attached redline version. Jonathan From: David Cake [mailto:dave@difference.com.au] Sent: 23 February 2015 10:11 To: Tony Holmes; <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> List Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition I would be happy to support that statement. David On 23 Feb 2015, at 3:39 am, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>> wrote: Jonathan/All Attached is the draft statement compiled by Avri and I on the IANA transition process. Comments welcome. Regards Tony <GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.zip> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9131 - Release Date: 02/17/15
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/879846f386bfc14ea1ca73a8b780385c.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
I fully support the statement with Jonathan's edits. Best regards, [cid:974484913@23022015-3253]Osvaldo Novoa Subgerente General Antel Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22 Montevideo, 11800 Uruguay Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax. +598 2928 6401 ________________________________ De: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] En nombre de Jonathan Robinson Enviado el: Lunes, 23 de Febrero de 2015 09:37 Para: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org Asunto: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition Thanks Tony & Avri, Please see my suggested edits contained in the attached redline version. Jonathan From: David Cake [mailto:dave@difference.com.au] Sent: 23 February 2015 10:11 To: Tony Holmes; <council@gnso.icann.org> List Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition I would be happy to support that statement. David On 23 Feb 2015, at 3:39 am, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>> wrote: Jonathan/All Attached is the draft statement compiled by Avri and I on the IANA transition process. Comments welcome. Regards Tony <GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.zip> ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
participants (10)
-
"Carlos Raúl G."
-
Amr Elsadr
-
David Cake
-
James M. Bladel
-
Jonathan Robinson
-
Novoa, Osvaldo
-
Patrick Myles
-
Phil Corwin
-
Reed, Daniel A
-
Tony Holmes