I think I'm inclined to agree with Steiner on this. We haven't really done the work to establish consensus on the rest of the comment and we are wading into deep waters.

From: Steinar Grøtterød via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>
Date: Thursday, October 31, 2024 at 10:16 AM
To: Joanna Kulesza <jkuleszaicann@gmail.com>, avri@doria.org <avri@doria.org>
Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>
Subject: [CPWG] Re: Draft Statement on .COM RA

Dear all,

I understand that the discussion of ICANNs multistakeholder model is of importance. However, I am not sure our response to the proposed .COM RA is the best way to (re-)start the discussion.

Why not end the public comment after the paragraph However, the ALAC is very concerned about an emerging trend where ICANN Org has repeatedly engaged in bi-lateral negotiations with its contracting parties to bring about substantive policy and operational changes that are more appropriately delegated deligated to the community and the multistakeholder model under the ICANN bylaws.

Regards,

Steinar Grøtterød

From: Joanna Kulesza via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>
Date: Thursday, 31 October 2024 at 10:52
To: avri@doria.org <avri@doria.org>
Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>
Subject: [CPWG] Re: Draft Statement on .COM RA

Hi Avri and all,

Thank you for your message and for facilitating the meeting to keep us on track. I completely understand how tricky it is, and I apologize for adding to your workload with my questions. I'm glad to keep the conversation going via email.

On the substance, I don't believe we fundamentally disagree. Regardless of how narrowly we interpret ICANN's mandate, external and internal critics will continue to leverage every perceived gap as an opportunity to challenge both the model and ICANN itself. Sweeping issues like those flagged by Michael under the rug, while continuing to address selected topics in private citing urgency, highlights inconsistencies that can diminish our credibility—especially with examples like the swift, effective handling of the DNS Abuse amendment (with little to no community consultation) contrasted with prolonged delays on others (data protection/implementing GDPR comes to mind).

Should the message be that ICANN is not the paradigm for multistakeholder governance for critical Internet resources? I believe it would benefit us to develop a narrative that addresses these criticisms more directly, rather than dismissing them as misunderstandings. This would also provide clarity for our local ALSes, who bear the brunt of these external concerns and need consistent messaging on how and why certain matters are handled confidentially, while others require exhaustive volunteer input and lengthy PDPs. A coherent narrative in this regard would be invaluable for the community's credibility and trust-building. The multistakeholder model is not perfect, but it is the best we have—providing credible validation and consistent messaging during a time of geopolitical turmoil is crucial.

Thanks again for your leadership and commitment to finding a path forward.

Warm regards,
Joanna

czw., 31 paź 2024 o 00:17 avri--- via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> napisał(a):

Hi.

I am sorry I had to cut off discussion in the meeting today. As a co-chair, I felt that we were not going to achieve consensus for making a comment in that meeting, and we had a full agenda.

I do not, however, want to cut off discussion. ALAC can communicate its position by other means if we miss the comment deadline. As you say, this is a core subject in terms of our multistakeholder model, so if AL can reach consensus on the subject, it should communicate that to the board. I also agree that there is good reason in sending this in as a personal statement, perhaps with co-signers and endorsers after the fact.

<hat off>

On the personal opinion side of the discussion, I think that this issue, an issue that has been fiercely argued from time to time for 20 years, in one form or another, is based on a misunderstanding of the ICANN model and its scope. The following is a comment I just recently added to Michael's draft, that I decided to pass on to the list after having finished it.

I think the basic problem is that ICANN is not fully multistakeholder with regard to its contracting. By having carved off a section of the contracts as subject to consensus policy, the famous picket fence, it has excluded other parts of contracting from multistakeholder governance. This is not an issue we seem to recognize in the community. We keep insisting that the multistakeholder methods of governance should apply to all contracts in all their clauses, but the corporation insists that this is not the case, i.e. those aspects are not part of the ICANN multistakeholder bargain with the community.

There is of course, a slim tether to the multistakeholder community, in the fact that the Board selected by the multistakeholder community often, sometimes at least, has the last word on contracting. If the community cannot content itself with the partial multistakeholder model, then we have a different issue.

(i will pop this into an email to the CPWG list)

<hat on>

From a co-chair perspective, I will go with whatever the CPWG can agree to, either in time for the deadline or sometime after.

thanks

avri

On 2024-10-30 14:29, mike palage.com via CPWG wrote:

Hello All,

In advance of our CPWG call later today, I wanted to share a draft of the proposed ALAC statement, see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sk4dwR5_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142aGAQ/edit?tab=t.0

My apologies for not getting this out sooner, but I have been juggling several day job conflicts. However, the statement is only two pages, so it is rather concise and an easy read. Taking the feedback of Avri on the doom and gloom of "this represents a systemic threat to the ICANN multistakeholder model" I have toned that wording down to "undermines the multistakeholder" which I think is a reasonable compromise.

I look forward to answering any questions people may have on today's call.

Best regards,

Michael

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Kind regards,

Joanna Kulesza

-------------------

Joanna Kulesza, PhD

Professor of International Law

Lodz Cyber Hub / University of Lodz Law School / Poland

www.cyber.uni.lodz.pl (EURALO ALS 341)

ALAC / EURALO / ALAC Liaison to the GAC