The rationale for giving ICANN (or PTI) the ability to initiate a SIFR would allude to some general principles of transparency (’everybody should be able to check everybody’). In my view the principles behind is an interesting discussion, but not very much more. The current Hybrid model and contract governance give ICANN a lot of power, the upper hand so to say. So according to proposal ICANN will already control IANA functions operations.
So who would ICANN scrutinize with its review power? Its own supporting organizations? SO:s and AC:s? Most cc:s are not even contracted with ICANN, and have few plans to become. Or would ICANN need to review its own IANA operations with an external organization? The latter would to me indicate lack of control. Or dual representation by MS community.
So a practical answer is: It wouldn’t need to. And I see very few possibilities of change in this area.
So my answer is more along a pragmatic stream: Is this relevant for the CWG? Now? Do we really, really need to include this aspect in transition? This late? Are we limiting our deliberations to what is absolutely necessary for the transition, or are we – once the window of ooportunity is open- trying to make it a perfect world? I would say no to both.
Another answer relates to direct process: The need for a review is about accountability, so any power for ICANN to review itself should preferably be discussed by CCWG (WS2).
However what might be valid, is that ICG soon will have to handle up to three parallel mechanisms for review (one from each community within CWG). Maybe we should remind them of the potential need to coordinate review mechanisms.
Staffan
With best regards
Staffan Jonson
Mr. Staffan Jonson, Senior Policy Adviser
.SE (The Internet Infrastructure foundation)
BOX 7399 | SE-103 91 STOCKHOLM | SWEDEN
Direct: +46 8 452 35 74 | SMS: +46 73 317 39 67
staffan.jonson@iis.se | www.iis.se/en
Från: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] För Martin Boyle
Skickat: den 5 juni 2015 12:01
Till: Matthew Shears; Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Ämne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments
I struggle to imagine why the ICANN Board (any more than the PTI Board) would want to initiate an SIFR, in particular without the support of the community. Worse, I would feel that there would be a “cunning plan” somewhere behind such a decision and that leaves me seriously questioning why we would want this process to be triggered in such a way. No support for an SIFR, no overriding ICANN (or PTI) Board to ignore interests of the community.
If someone can see possible reasons, I’d like to hear them. Then any trigger route could be defined (and limited) more carefully.
Martin
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears
Sent: 05 June 2015 06:17
To: Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments
But what would the thresholds be? And, currently an SIFR comes as a result of other mechanisms being exhausted as well as the IANA probems resolution process.
The Special IFR would be triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority.
Would we require a supermajority of only the Board, or in addition to the ccNSO and GNSO. And as a result of the mechanisms being exhausted? I would assume so.
Matthew
On 6/5/2015 4:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: