Draft Statement on .COM RA
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_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a... 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
Dear Michael and all, Thank you for sharing the excellent draft of the ALAC statement. Please let me follow up with the query, as I believe this conversation is particularly relevant as we prepare for the upcoming cross-community plenary in Istanbul. Our plenary proposal has undergone significant redrafting, shifting our original focus from new infrastructures, international law and MSM challenges to highlighting the strengths and exemplary implementation of the multistakeholder model within our community in an "optimistic tone", as outlined in the draft description here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hi_94oqkk71uCuueUp9MfLkkfJ82RKN31-A11xP8.... However, I am concerned that this shift may overlook the current challenges facing the MSM, including those reflected in the .com RA statement. Ahead of tomorrow’s plenary PC call, please kindly advise on whether we might wish to consider framing our plenary message and scoping questions to acknowledge these challenges? Your guidance on this matter would be greatly appreciated. I'm looking forward to the CPWG call later today. Best regards, Joanna śr., 30 paź 2024 o 15:30 mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> napisał(a):
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_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a...
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.
-- 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
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_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a... [1]
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.
Links: ------ [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sk4dwR5_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a...
Dear Avri, thanks for continuing the dialogue online. Often with matters of communication, timing is everything. And indeed, we were running out of time during the CPWG call. The ALAC's ratification processes require several days for the ALAC to study the statement, perhaps discuss it with each other and for the ALAC to conduct a ratification vote. On this occasion, if the ALAC was to submit the Statement before the end of the comment period on 5 November 2024, it would have needed to follow the timeline that is listed on the CPWG Agenda policy table: Draft Statement: 23 Oct 2024 Final Statement: 30 Oct 2024 ALAC Vote: 31 Oct 2024 to 04 Nov 2024 We are clearly running out of time on this, if we want to give enough people the ability to both read the Statement and also comment on it. Traditionally, the ALAC has had two ways to resolve "running out of time": 1. Make a formal request (through At-Large support staff) for additional time to submit its input to the consultation, usually 7-14 extra days. On occasions, ICANN has replied by extending the comment period for everyone. On some occasions, ICANN has replied by allowing the ALAC's comments to be received a few days late as it takes ICANN several days to process the comments received - thus the ALAC's comments could arrive within the ICANN processing window. 2. In the case where the ICANN consultation process was under tight deadlines and where it was not possible for the consultation deadline to be extended, the ALAC was still able to submit its comments. One of the ALAC's bylaw-mandated functions is to be able to comment on any ICANN related topic at any time. It is not constrained by comment periods. So the ALAC could submit the comment late. The decision for asking for an extension rests in the hands of the ALAC Chair. An extension would indeed provide more days to search for consensus on the Statement draft currently published on https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sk4dwR5_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a... (I invite everyone to look at it again in light of the comments made by Avri) On the relevance of the "topic" and the ALAC line of comment, the concerns expressed in the current draft are not new. The ALAC has expressed such concerns on several occasions: - Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments—GNSO Policy & Implementation Recommendations (16 Sept 2015) - https://atlarge.icann.org/en/advice_statements/9699 - expresses concerns about the imbalance of stakeholder control in implementation. - GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group Publishes Initial Recommendations Report (17 March 2015) - https://atlarge.icann.org/en/advice_statements/6511 - expressed concerns about matters of public interest needing to include all stakeholders - ALAC Statement on the Policy & Implementation Working Group (21 Nov 2013) - https://atlarge.icann.org/en/advice_statements/7011 - expressing its baseline concerns in matters of Policy vs. Implementation in the early days of the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group. - And of course there is also the ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board on the Subsequent Procedures PDP Recommendations (16 April 2021) - https://atlarge.icann.org/en/advice_statements/13823 - where the ALAC Advises the ICANN Board to proceed with contractual updates in relation to DNS Abuse and other matters, as a result of community driven recommendations. DNS Abuse is, as you know, a significant topic of concern for At-Large and the ALAC has been struggling with both Contracted Parties and the ICANN Board for a long time before the topic became addressed seriously. Outside official "Statements", the ALAC is on record for expressing concerns about behind the scenes negotiations during bilateral contractual negotiations with Registrars and Registries that take place behind closed doors. It has asked, at least on one occasion, whether it was possible for it to have observers participate at bilateral contractual negotiations should these negotiations be allowed to introduce significant changes to the policy recommendations that were drawn by the Community in the Policy Development Process. This was refused since "Contractual negotiations have to be kept confidential". Given this, plus the comments added by Avri in her email below and on the document, can we make amendments and find consensus to have a text that reflects the ALAC ongoing concern that bottom-up Policy Development should not be short-circuited by bilateral contractual negotiations taking place behind closed doors? Kindest regards, Olivier On 30/10/2024 23:16, avri--- via CPWG wrote:
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_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a...
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 tocpwg-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.
I am not a lawyer, but perhaps one of the lawyers among us can clear up something for me. Olivier notes that It has asked, at least on one occasion, whether it was possible for it to have observers participate at bilateral contractual negotiations should these negotiations be allowed to introduce significant changes to the policy recommendations that were drawn by the Community in the Policy Development Process. This was refused since "Contractual negotiations have to be kept confidential" Can some one explain why "Contractual negotiations have to be kept confidential" ? I can see some reasons why it might, in some cases, make negotiations smoother. But is there some kind of legal requirement here? If so, there's nothing more to say. But if not, it seems worthwhile to push back a bit on this. Bill Jouris Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 7:52 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG<cpwg@icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ 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. | | Virus-free.www.avg.com |
Excellent question, Bill Especially when the original inputs by our volunteers have involved hours of unpaid time. The final resolution has to be endorsed by the Empowered Community. The community leaders should raise this anomoly before it gets to that stage. M On Sat, 2 Nov 2024, 6:38 am Bill Jouris via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but perhaps one of the lawyers among us can clear up something for me. Olivier notes that
It has asked, at least on one occasion, whether it was possible for it to have observers participate at bilateral contractual negotiations should these negotiations be allowed to introduce significant changes to the policy recommendations that were drawn by the Community in the Policy Development Process. This was refused since "Contractual negotiations have to be kept confidential"
Can some one explain *why* "Contractual negotiations have to be kept confidential" ? I can see some reasons why it might, in some cases, make negotiations smoother. But is there some kind of *legal* requirement here? If so, there's nothing more to say. But if not, it seems worthwhile to push back a bit on this.
Bill Jouris
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...>
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 7:52 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________ 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.
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...> Virus-free.www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...> <#m_-3664102129129965293_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> _______________________________________________ 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.
In a multi-stakeholder environment, no contractual negotiation should be confidential. Once signed, the contract cannot be modified except by each of the parties. But what happens if, once signed, something is inconvenient for one of the multiple stakeholders? Regards Alberto De: Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Enviado el: sábado, 2 de noviembre de 2024 04:18 Para: Bill Jouris <b_jouris@yahoo.com>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Asunto: [CPWG] Re: Draft Statement on .COM RA Excellent question, Bill Especially when the original inputs by our volunteers have involved hours of unpaid time. The final resolution has to be endorsed by the Empowered Community. The community leaders should raise this anomoly before it gets to that stage. M On Sat, 2 Nov 2024, 6:38 am Bill Jouris via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> > wrote: I am not a lawyer, but perhaps one of the lawyers among us can clear up something for me. Olivier notes that It has asked, at least on one occasion, whether it was possible for it to have observers participate at bilateral contractual negotiations should these negotiations be allowed to introduce significant changes to the policy recommendations that were drawn by the Community in the Policy Development Process. This was refused since "Contractual negotiations have to be kept confidential" Can some one explain why "Contractual negotiations have to be kept confidential" ? I can see some reasons why it might, in some cases, make negotiations smoother. But is there some kind of legal requirement here? If so, there's nothing more to say. But if not, it seems worthwhile to push back a bit on this. Bill Jouris Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...> On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 7:52 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> > wrote: _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org <mailto: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. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...> Virus-free. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...> www.avg.com _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org <mailto: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.
Hello All, My concern about ICANN and the contracting parties using bilateral negotiations to circumvent the true multistakeholder models regarding cyber security incident reporting appears to have been justified. Attached is the new baseline RA for the next round of new gTLDs, which was released on November 1st. Not surprisingly, you will notice a new provision regarding cyber incident reporting under paragraph 2.19 (page 10 of 125). Here is my question to Avri. Are you in a position to comment on whether cyber incident reporting was something that was being actively discussed over the past couple of years or does this appear to be something that has just surfaced coincidently in connection with the .COM RA? While I will only be in Istanbul briefly (Friday, Saturday and Thursday) I would like to find time with anyone willing to discuss this clearly emerging trend and what we want to do about it. Best regards, Michael From: Alberto Soto via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2024 8:12 AM To: 'Maureen Hilyard' <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>; 'Bill Jouris' <b_jouris@yahoo.com>; 'CPWG' <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] Re: Draft Statement on .COM RA In a multi-stakeholder environment, no contractual negotiation should be confidential. Once signed, the contract cannot be modified except by each of the parties. But what happens if, once signed, something is inconvenient for one of the multiple stakeholders? Regards Alberto De: Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Enviado el: sábado, 2 de noviembre de 2024 04:18 Para: Bill Jouris <b_jouris@yahoo.com>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Asunto: [CPWG] Re: Draft Statement on .COM RA Excellent question, Bill Especially when the original inputs by our volunteers have involved hours of unpaid time. The final resolution has to be endorsed by the Empowered Community. The community leaders should raise this anomoly before it gets to that stage. M On Sat, 2 Nov 2024, 6:38 am Bill Jouris via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: I am not a lawyer, but perhaps one of the lawyers among us can clear up something for me. Olivier notes that It has asked, at least on one occasion, whether it was possible for it to have observers participate at bilateral contractual negotiations should these negotiations be allowed to introduce significant changes to the policy recommendations that were drawn by the Community in the Policy Development Process. This was refused since "Contractual negotiations have to be kept confidential" Can some one explain why "Contractual negotiations have to be kept confidential" ? I can see some reasons why it might, in some cases, make negotiations smoother. But is there some kind of legal requirement here? If so, there's nothing more to say. But if not, it seems worthwhile to push back a bit on this. Bill Jouris Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...> On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 7:52 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto: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. [Image removed by sender.]<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...> Virus-free.www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto: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.
Hi, Thanks for your note. First I am assuming it does not constitute an objection to sending the comment onto ALAC for approval. As for your question, i have no such recollection, but i am not one of the official memories for SubPro; though I followed it rather closely, I was only an observer to the PDP and interaction with the staff, trying not to tip the scales the last years. I did just do a cursory check of the SubPro Report and see only a glancing reference to the Cyber security incident Log on p64. For quick completeness sake also checked the ODP, but saw no reference there either. I am sure there are more records one could check looking for a referenc and one could do a more through record check than I did.. Happy to chat in Istanbul and after. Good luck with your US election labors tomorrow. and be safe. And good travels. avri On 2024-11-04 14:16, mike palage.com via CPWG wrote:
Hello All,
My concern about ICANN and the contracting parties using bilateral negotiations to circumvent the true multistakeholder models regarding cyber security incident reporting appears to have been justified. Attached is the new baseline RA for the next round of new gTLDs, which was released on November 1st. Not surprisingly, you will notice a new provision regarding cyber incident reporting under paragraph 2.19 (page 10 of 125).
Here is my question to Avri. Are you in a position to comment on whether cyber incident reporting was something that was being actively discussed over the past couple of years or does this appear to be something that has just surfaced coincidently in connection with the .COM RA?
While I will only be in Istanbul briefly (Friday, Saturday and Thursday) I would like to find time with anyone willing to discuss this clearly emerging trend and what we want to do about it.
Best regards,
Michael
From: Alberto Soto via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2024 8:12 AM To: 'Maureen Hilyard' <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>; 'Bill Jouris' <b_jouris@yahoo.com>; 'CPWG' <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] Re: Draft Statement on .COM RA
In a multi-stakeholder environment, no contractual negotiation should be confidential. Once signed, the contract cannot be modified except by each of the parties. But what happens if, once signed, something is inconvenient for one of the multiple stakeholders?
Regards
Alberto
De: Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Enviado el: sábado, 2 de noviembre de 2024 04:18 Para: Bill Jouris <b_jouris@yahoo.com>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Asunto: [CPWG] Re: Draft Statement on .COM RA
Excellent question, Bill
Especially when the original inputs by our volunteers have involved hours of unpaid time. The final resolution has to be endorsed by the Empowered Community. The community leaders should raise this anomoly before it gets to that stage.
M
On Sat, 2 Nov 2024, 6:38 am Bill Jouris via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but perhaps one of the lawyers among us can clear up something for me. Olivier notes that
It has asked, at least on one occasion, whether it was possible for it to have observers participate at bilateral contractual negotiations should these negotiations be allowed to introduce significant changes to the policy recommendations that were drawn by the Community in the Policy Development Process. This was refused since "Contractual negotiations have to be kept confidential"
Can some one explain _why_ "Contractual negotiations have to be kept confidential" ? I can see some reasons why it might, in some cases, make negotiations smoother. But is there some kind of _legal_ requirement here? If so, there's nothing more to say. But if not, it seems worthwhile to push back a bit on this.
Bill Jouris
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [1]
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 7:52 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG
<cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________ 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 [2]) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [3]). 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.
[4]
Virus-free.www.avg.com [4]
_______________________________________________ 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 [2]) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [3]). 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. Links: ------ [1] https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr... [2] https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [3] https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [4] http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...
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_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a...
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
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<mailto: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<http://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_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a... 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<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto: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<http://www.cyber.uni.lodz.pl> (EURALO ALS 341) ALAC / EURALO / ALAC Liaison to the GAC
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<mailto: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<http://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_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a... 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<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto: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<http://www.cyber.uni.lodz.pl> (EURALO ALS 341) ALAC / EURALO / ALAC Liaison to the GAC
Hi, Grateful to you Steiner for offering a way forward. How do others feel about this proposal? Is it something we can find consensus on? Michael, would you accept it? thanks avri On 2024-10-31 11:06, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
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 [1] 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_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a... [2]
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 [3] (EURALO ALS 341) ALAC / EURALO / ALAC Liaison to the GAC Links: ------ [1] http://palage.com [2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sk4dwR5_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a... [3] http://www.cyber.uni.lodz.pl
I agree with Steiner. He is judicious and gives time to avoid making mistakes... Best Alberto De: avri--- via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Enviado el: jueves, 31 de octubre de 2024 09:56 Para: Cpwg <cpwg@icann.org> Asunto: [CPWG] Re: Draft Statement on .COM RA Hi, Grateful to you Steiner for offering a way forward. How do others feel about this proposal? Is it something we can find consensus on? Michael, would you accept it? thanks avri On 2024-10-31 11:06, Jonathan Zuck wrote: 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 <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> > Date: Thursday, October 31, 2024 at 10:16 AM To: Joanna Kulesza <jkuleszaicann@gmail.com <mailto:jkuleszaicann@gmail.com> >, avri@doria.org <mailto:avri@doria.org> <avri@doria.org <mailto:avri@doria.org> > Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> > Date: Thursday, 31 October 2024 at 10:52 To: avri@doria.org <mailto:avri@doria.org> <avri@doria.org <mailto:avri@doria.org> > Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://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_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a... 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 <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org <mailto: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 <http://www.cyber.uni.lodz.pl> (EURALO ALS 341) ALAC / EURALO / ALAC Liaison to the GAC
Hello All, First, I would like to explain my abrupt departure from yesterday’s CPWG call. Over the last week and a half, I have been working as a poll worker in the US general election, doing my part to make democracy work. However, I must admit that I did not fully appreciate this task's mental stress, although I have some fun/positive stories for anyone willing to listen in Istanbul. Yesterday, I was working on 3 hours of sleep as I had to get up at 3 AM to get down to the Miami passport office to get a new passport for my upcoming trip to Istanbul and Cape Town. I used 2 hours of my limited free time yesterday to prepare that statement while working from the parking garage based on the support expressed on last week’s call. I was disappointed that the time management/moderation of yesterday’s call, which saw a somewhat time-sensitive issue, allocated a limited amount of time and buried on the back-end of the agenda. I thought it best, based on my current stress levels and limited sleep, to end the call before I said something to Avri that would have irretrievably damaged our friendship. Because at the end of the day, I know that Avri and I agree on much more than we disagree. Expanding on Avri’s “picket fence” conundrum, as someone who has demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of ICANN’s contracts I am fully aware of the metes and bounds of the picket fence, and I would encourage those newer ICANN participants or those needing a refresher to review this slide deck, see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/picket-fen... The issue that I included in the draft ALAC statement addressed Verisign’s reporting of cyber incidents to ICANN. If you look at the deck that I just shared you will see that this FALLS “squarely inside” the picket fence as an issue “for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate interoperability, technical reliability and/or stable operation of the Internet or domain-name system” (See slide 6 of 16) and not “outside the picket fence” (slide 13 of 16). Christopher Wilkinson, over the past several years, has used the word “cartel” to describe certain interactions within ICANN. While I am not yet ready to use that “C” word, I think ICANN is quickly becoming a de facto trade association with a veneer of multi-stakeholderism, and I believe there are “facts” to support that statement. Therefore, I propose we set up a dedicated CPWG call post ICANN81 to address this issue. A dedicated call would be best to avoid interfering with the other CPWG activities. Joanna, Avri, would you be willing to assist me in co-moderating this proposed dedicated call after ICANN81? I think channeling our collective effort on this BIGGER objective is much more worthwhile than trying to squeeze in an ALAC statement on .COM that the Board will just pass over. Best regards, Michael From: Jonathan Zuck via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2024 7:06 AM To: Steinar Grøtterød <steinar@recito.no>; Joanna Kulesza <jkuleszaicann@gmail.com>; avri@doria.org Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] Re: Draft Statement on .COM RA 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<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, October 31, 2024 at 10:16 AM To: Joanna Kulesza <jkuleszaicann@gmail.com<mailto:jkuleszaicann@gmail.com>>, avri@doria.org<mailto:avri@doria.org> <avri@doria.org<mailto:avri@doria.org>> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, 31 October 2024 at 10:52 To: avri@doria.org<mailto:avri@doria.org> <avri@doria.org<mailto:avri@doria.org>> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://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_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a... 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<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto: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<http://www.cyber.uni.lodz.pl> (EURALO ALS 341) ALAC / EURALO / ALAC Liaison to the GAC
Hi, Happy to schedule and co-moderate a single issue session on these topics for after the AGM. thanks avri On 2024-10-31 13:04, mike palage.com wrote:
Hello All,
First, I would like to explain my abrupt departure from yesterday's CPWG call. Over the last week and a half, I have been working as a poll worker in the US general election, doing my part to make democracy work. However, I must admit that I did not fully appreciate this task's mental stress, although I have some fun/positive stories for anyone willing to listen in Istanbul. Yesterday, I was working on 3 hours of sleep as I had to get up at 3 AM to get down to the Miami passport office to get a new passport for my upcoming trip to Istanbul and Cape Town. I used 2 hours of my limited free time yesterday to prepare that statement while working from the parking garage based on the support expressed on last week's call. I was disappointed that the time management/moderation of yesterday's call, which saw a somewhat time-sensitive issue, allocated a limited amount of time and buried on the back-end of the agenda. I thought it best, based on my current stress levels and limited sleep, to end the call before I said something to Avri that would have irretrievably damaged our friendship. Because at the end of the day, I know that Avri and I agree on much more than we disagree.
Expanding on Avri's "picket fence" conundrum, as someone who has demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of ICANN's contracts I am fully aware of the metes and bounds of the picket fence, and I would encourage those newer ICANN participants or those needing a refresher to review this slide deck, see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/picket-fen... [1] The issue that I included in the draft ALAC statement addressed Verisign's reporting of cyber incidents to ICANN. If you look at the deck that I just shared you will see that this FALLS "squarely inside" the picket fence as an issue "for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate interoperability, technical reliability and/or stable operation of the Internet or domain-name system" (See slide 6 of 16) and not "outside the picket fence" (slide 13 of 16).
Christopher Wilkinson, over the past several years, has used the word "cartel" to describe certain interactions within ICANN. While I am not yet ready to use that "C" word, I think ICANN is quickly becoming a de facto trade association with a veneer of multi-stakeholderism, and I believe there are "facts" to support that statement. Therefore, I propose we set up a dedicated CPWG call post ICANN81 to address this issue. A dedicated call would be best to avoid interfering with the other CPWG activities.
Joanna, Avri, would you be willing to assist me in co-moderating this proposed dedicated call after ICANN81? I think channeling our collective effort on this BIGGER objective is much more worthwhile than trying to squeeze in an ALAC statement on .COM that the Board will just pass over.
Best regards,
Michael
From: Jonathan Zuck via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2024 7:06 AM To: Steinar Grøtterød <steinar@recito.no>; Joanna Kulesza <jkuleszaicann@gmail.com>; avri@doria.org Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] Re: Draft Statement on .COM RA
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 [2] 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_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a... [3]
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 [4] (EURALO ALS 341) ALAC / EURALO / ALAC Liaison to the GAC Links: ------ [1] https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/picket-fen... [2] http://palage.com [3] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sk4dwR5_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a... [4] http://www.cyber.uni.lodz.pl
Same for me, Michael, and thank you for your continuted leadership on this vital topic. Looking forward to Istanbul and fingers crossed for a good_ result of the US election next week. Best to all, Joanna czw., 31 paź 2024 o 15:47 <avri@doria.org> napisał(a):
Hi,
Happy to schedule and co-moderate a single issue session on these topics for after the AGM.
thanks
avri
On 2024-10-31 13:04, mike palage.com wrote:
Hello All,
First, I would like to explain my abrupt departure from yesterday's CPWG call. Over the last week and a half, I have been working as a poll worker in the US general election, doing my part to make democracy work. However, I must admit that I did not fully appreciate this task's mental stress, although I have some fun/positive stories for anyone willing to listen in Istanbul. Yesterday, I was working on 3 hours of sleep as I had to get up at 3 AM to get down to the Miami passport office to get a new passport for my upcoming trip to Istanbul and Cape Town. I used 2 hours of my limited free time yesterday to prepare that statement while working from the parking garage based on the support expressed on last week's call. I was disappointed that the time management/moderation of yesterday's call, which saw a somewhat time-sensitive issue, allocated a limited amount of time and buried on the back-end of the agenda. I thought it best, based on my current stress levels and limited sleep, to end the call before I said something to Avri that would have irretrievably damaged our friendship. Because at the end of the day, I know that Avri and I agree on much more than we disagree.
Expanding on Avri's "picket fence" conundrum, as someone who has demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of ICANN's contracts I am fully aware of the metes and bounds of the picket fence, and I would encourage those newer ICANN participants or those needing a refresher to review this slide deck, see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/picket-fen... The issue that I included in the draft ALAC statement addressed Verisign's reporting of cyber incidents to ICANN. If you look at the deck that I just shared you will see that this FALLS "squarely inside" the picket fence as an issue "for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate interoperability, technical reliability and/or stable operation of the Internet or domain-name system" (See slide 6 of 16) and not "outside the picket fence" (slide 13 of 16).
Christopher Wilkinson, over the past several years, has used the word "cartel" to describe certain interactions within ICANN. While I am not yet ready to use that "C" word, I think ICANN is quickly becoming a de facto trade association with a veneer of multi-stakeholderism, and I believe there are "facts" to support that statement. Therefore, I propose we set up a dedicated CPWG call post ICANN81 to address this issue. A dedicated call would be best to avoid interfering with the other CPWG activities.
Joanna, Avri, would you be willing to assist me in co-moderating this proposed dedicated call after ICANN81? I think channeling our collective effort on this BIGGER objective is much more worthwhile than trying to squeeze in an ALAC statement on .COM that the Board will just pass over.
Best regards,
Michael
*From:* Jonathan Zuck via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, October 31, 2024 7:06 AM *To:* Steinar Grøtterød <steinar@recito.no>; Joanna Kulesza < jkuleszaicann@gmail.com>; avri@doria.org *Cc:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* [CPWG] Re: Draft Statement on .COM RA
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_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a...
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
-- 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
Hi Steinar and all, I agree with keeping the comment concise as suggested; however, given that this RA will govern 72% of the market ( https://dnib.com/articles/the-domain-name-industry-brief-q3-2024), it seems like an ideal opportunity to address our concerns. ;) Thanks for bearing with the uptick in emails. Looking forward to the final statement. Best, Joanna czw., 31 paź 2024 o 11:15 Steinar Grøtterød <steinar@recito.no> napisał(a):
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_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a...
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
-- 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
Hi, Thank you Steinar. After this suggestion and the favorable reception it got in the discussion, I am proposing that we accept Steinar's suggestion, see if there are any objections to moving it forward, and (hopefully) send it on to ALAC for approval. All the process may make it late, but I do not think this makes that much difference in this case as we are using the opportunity to appreciate the changes and to make a larger point, which we may follow up on in the future. The marked up draft is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sk4dwR5_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a... I have attached a clean pdf for reference sake. (thanks Andrew.) I ask that if you object to sending this on for ALAC approval, you let the list before the end of Monday. thanks avri On 2024-10-31 10:15, Steinar Grøtterød wrote:
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 dont believe we fundamentally disagree. Regardless of how narrowly we interpret ICANNs 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 credibilityespecially 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 communitys credibility and trust-building. The multistakeholder model is not perfect, but it is the best we haveproviding 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 [1] 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_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a... [2]
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 todays 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 [3] (EURALO ALS 341) ALAC / EURALO / ALAC Liaison to the GAC Links: ------ [1] http://palage.com [2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sk4dwR5_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a... [3] http://www.cyber.uni.lodz.pl
Hi, At this point Monday the 4th has ended in most places. I have not seen any objection or request for change in the comment being sent to ALAC for approval, though there have been some interesting beginnings on future ongoing discussions. I request that staff move this doc to ALAC for their approval. Thanks all avri On 2024-11-01 15:25, avri@doria.org wrote:
Hi,
Thank you Steinar.
After this suggestion and the favorable reception it got in the discussion, I am proposing that we accept Steinar's suggestion, see if there are any objections to moving it forward, and (hopefully) send it on to ALAC for approval.
All the process may make it late, but I do not think this makes that much difference in this case as we are using the opportunity to appreciate the changes and to make a larger point, which we may follow up on in the future.
The marked up draft is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sk4dwR5_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a...
I have attached a clean pdf for reference sake. (thanks Andrew.)
I ask that if you object to sending this on for ALAC approval, you let the list before the end of Monday.
thanks
avri
On 2024-10-31 10:15, Steinar Grøtterød wrote:
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 dont believe we fundamentally disagree. Regardless of how narrowly we interpret ICANNs 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 credibilityespecially 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 communitys credibility and trust-building. The multistakeholder model is not perfect, but it is the best we haveproviding 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 [1] 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_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a... [2]
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 todays 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 [3] (EURALO ALS 341) ALAC / EURALO / ALAC Liaison to the GAC Links: ------ [1] http://palage.com [2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sk4dwR5_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a... [3] http://www.cyber.uni.lodz.pl
Thanks for staying on task, Avri. I'm supportive of spending some time on this, after the meeting. I recall Becky has a pretty good presentation on the picket fence. Let's all get in the same page about the question we're asking. ________________________________ From: avri--- via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 4:00:58 PM To: Cpwg <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] Re: Draft Statement on .COM RA Hi, At this point Monday the 4th has ended in most places. I have not seen any objection or request for change in the comment being sent to ALAC for approval, though there have been some interesting beginnings on future ongoing discussions. I request that staff move this doc to ALAC for their approval. Thanks all avri On 2024-11-01 15:25, avri@doria.org wrote: Hi, Thank you Steinar. After this suggestion and the favorable reception it got in the discussion, I am proposing that we accept Steinar's suggestion, see if there are any objections to moving it forward, and (hopefully) send it on to ALAC for approval. All the process may make it late, but I do not think this makes that much difference in this case as we are using the opportunity to appreciate the changes and to make a larger point, which we may follow up on in the future. The marked up draft is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sk4dwR5_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a... I have attached a clean pdf for reference sake. (thanks Andrew.) I ask that if you object to sending this on for ALAC approval, you let the list before the end of Monday. thanks avri On 2024-10-31 10:15, Steinar Grøtterød wrote: 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<mailto: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<http://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_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a... 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<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto: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<http://www.cyber.uni.lodz.pl> (EURALO ALS 341) ALAC / EURALO / ALAC Liaison to the GAC
+1 Joanna and Avri On Thu, 31 Oct 2024, 9:51 am Joanna Kulesza via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
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_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a...
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 _______________________________________________ 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.
I would like to endorse that part of Avri's mail beginning with '*On the personal opinion side of the discussion*'. The days come and the years pass. For as long as I have caucused with the At-Large, I understand that most are unaware that there is a major difference between the ICANN Community and the public benefit corporation organized under the laws of the state of California labeled ICANN. For as long as I have caucused with the At-Large and notwithstanding the At-Large proffer a member to be seated - some still think the At-Large is properly positioned to seat 2 members! - the plurality of the caucus yet struggle to understand that the fealty of board members is to ICANN, the public benefit corporation organised under the laws of the state of California and the corporate objectives, not the place from whence they come. The most one can expect is that the socialisation of board members to baseline principles of the incubating community would sustain an approach to consensus at board level. And at any rate, ALAC as institutional home for the At-Large and empowered in bye-law can, if so desired, speak to the Board directly via its official advice. In Avri's view ICANN, the corporation, has carved parts of their contracting to be outside the purview of consensus policy. I have a more nuanced - and likely - starker view. I am prepared only to acknowledge that consensus policy is merely a referential substrate for contracting, the letter and spirit of those policies purely tonal to that event. There was a time this was fiercely argued in face-to-face meetings with the Board and contracting parties we were cultivating for adopting our view. I avoid vexations to my spirit by taking a very measured approach to some of these anxieties. Because I know fundamental understandings are missing from the equation. Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 at 18:17, avri--- via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
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_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a...
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.
I think we will all benefit from an understanding of the circumstances which led to the ICANN picket fence - i.e. what's reflected in the ICANN Bylaws Annex G - in order to have a proper discussion on what are and are not (currently) subject to community-driven policies. My thanks in advance to Avri for volunteering to put this on the docket for some time after ICANN81. Justine On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 at 05:13, Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
I would like to endorse that part of Avri's mail beginning with '*On the personal opinion side of the discussion*'.
The days come and the years pass. For as long as I have caucused with the At-Large, I understand that most are unaware that there is a major difference between the ICANN Community and the public benefit corporation organized under the laws of the state of California labeled ICANN.
For as long as I have caucused with the At-Large and notwithstanding the At-Large proffer a member to be seated - some still think the At-Large is properly positioned to seat 2 members! - the plurality of the caucus yet struggle to understand that the fealty of board members is to ICANN, the public benefit corporation organised under the laws of the state of California and the corporate objectives, not the place from whence they come.
The most one can expect is that the socialisation of board members to baseline principles of the incubating community would sustain an approach to consensus at board level. And at any rate, ALAC as institutional home for the At-Large and empowered in bye-law can, if so desired, speak to the Board directly via its official advice.
In Avri's view ICANN, the corporation, has carved parts of their contracting to be outside the purview of consensus policy. I have a more nuanced - and likely - starker view. I am prepared only to acknowledge that consensus policy is merely a referential substrate for contracting, the letter and spirit of those policies purely tonal to that event. There was a time this was fiercely argued in face-to-face meetings with the Board and contracting parties we were cultivating for adopting our view.
I avoid vexations to my spirit by taking a very measured approach to some of these anxieties. Because I know fundamental understandings are missing from the equation.
Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 at 18:17, avri--- via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
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_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a...
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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
participants (11)
-
alberto＠soto.net.ar -
avri＠doria.org -
Bill Jouris -
Carlton Samuels -
Joanna Kulesza -
Jonathan Zuck -
Justine Chew -
Maureen Hilyard -
mike palage.com -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Steinar Grøtterød