Thanks Chuck, that's helpful in that it does provide a way of addressing my concerns. As a starter for 10 (and based on the document Grace sent out last night), I would suggest the following: Paragraph 106, add to the end: "However, the review mandate is strictly limited to evaluation against the SOW and does not include any policy or contracting issues that are not part of the IANA functions operation contract. In particular it does not include issues related to policy development and adoption processes, or evaluation or contract enforcement measures between contracted TLDs and ICANN." Paragraph 111, add to end: "As for the periodic review, the special IANA Functions Review is limited to the operation of the IANA functions operation and does not include policy development and adoption process or the relationship between ICANN and its contracted TLDs." Paragraph 226 (Annex F), second bullet, add to end: "Note, this does not include any review of policy developed or adopted through agreed processes or on ICANN's relationship with contracted TLDs." Paragraph 226, final bullet, between "improvements" and "suggested by" insert: "(where relevant to the mandate of the IFR)" Paragraph 233 table: I thought that at the last call we agreed to there being two ccNSO and three RySG-appointed members. Paragraph 233bis (new paragraph under the table): In any case where a recommendation focuses on a service specific to gTLDs or to ccTLDs, or where the processes are different between the two, the final recommendation should not be decided in the face of opposition from that community's members. Solely gTLD issues must not be decided in opposition to GNSO members and solely ccTLD issues (or issues which are handled differently for ccTLDs) must not be decided in opposition to ccTLD members of the IFRT." I hope this helps and would welcome thoughts. Martin From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: 01 June 2015 21:50 To: Martin Boyle; jonathan.robinson@afilias.info; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] GNSO-ccNSO engagement in the Multi-stakeholder model Martin, I don't see anything in your concerns that I disagree with so if there are places where we tighten up the language, I hope you will provide suggestions for clearer language. Chuck From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk] Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 11:44 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; jonathan.robinson@afilias.info<mailto:jonathan.robinson@afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] GNSO-ccNSO engagement in the Multi-stakeholder model Chuck, Jonathan & I had a discussion this morning about the implications of my e-mail. In essence my concerns focus on two clear issues: 1. GNSO-appointed members intervening on issues relevant to ccTLDs or ccTLD-appointed members intervening on gTLD issues. (This is clear out of line with the principles and criteria document - annex C of the 2nd draft proposal - in particular under 7.ii, 8.ii and 8.iii.) 2. Policy issues becoming criteria in any of the review processes other than a failure of the IANA functions operator abiding by agreed policy. (This is covered in the principles and criteria document under 5.iii, independence of policy from IANA and 7.) In the first case, a large GNSO-nominated membership of the review team would outnumber those who know about the issues affecting ccTLDs: I am concerned that this could lead to reviews being based on performance against gTLD processes, ignoring or misinterpreting ccTLD issues. The second is more subjective. Given that the GNSO is essentially a policy-development organisation, I am concerned that heavy GNSO membership will lead to re-running issues that should be dealt with at the ICANN level. I would not want to see the PTI (or a successor organisation) being judged on issues where it does not have a role and cannot (or should not) have an influence. Independence of policy from IANA also means that the assessment of the performance of the IANA functions operator also needs to be independent of policy In our discussion Jonathan & I wondered whether we could include clear statements in the terms of reference for the IFR on these points. Hope this helps identify a practical way forward. Martin From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: 01 June 2015 14:15 To: Martin Boyle; jonathan.robinson@afilias.info<mailto:jonathan.robinson@afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] GNSO-ccNSO engagement in the Multi-stakeholder model Martin, I have no argument at all with your conclusion that "we - gs and cs - have at least equal interest in the provision of a well-run IANA functions operator." I think one cause of any imbalances that may be perceived has to do with the fact that gTLD registries are just a subset of the GNSO while the ccNSO only involves ccTLD registries, albeit not all of them. That said, I personally support efforts to achieve as much balance as possible between c's and g's. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 3:58 AM To: jonathan.robinson@afilias.info<mailto:jonathan.robinson@afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] GNSO-ccNSO engagement in the Multi-stakeholder model Jonathan, In one of Friday's calls I noted the imbalance between GNSO and ccNSO (and wider ccTLD) engagement in the various entities the model is putting in place. You responded that the GNSO is not an homogenous organisation. I let the discussion drop, not because I was happy with the response, but because I was getting no traction in the discussion and did not want to delay it any further. However, I would like to at least put on the record why I think the current imbalance is wrong and gives too much say to a GNSO-skewed view of the IANA. I'm sure that the traditional balance in favour of the gTLD-centric view of the universe works fine in an ICANN setting, given that most of this is about policy-making and relatively little of this implicates ccTLDs. This is the main reason for the disproportionate funding of ICANN's costs between the GNSO and ccNSO: simply put, ccTLDs use considerably less of ICANN's resources. However, for the IANA, without exact figures to hand, I would expect the balance in use between ccTLDs and gTLDs of the IANA services to be much more equal and most ccTLDs recognise the need for fair funding of the IANA functions operation. Certainly I'd say we - gs and cs - have at least equal interest in the provision of a well-run IANA functions operator. But a serious alarm went up for me a few weeks ago when I had an extended exchange on list with Chuck and Milton about ICANN instructions to IANA. (For many of you, this must have seemed like an esoteric discussion. I'd say it was symptomatic of a fundamental issue that we are failing to address.) The gTLD view of life (in this case) was all about ICANN giving instructions to the IANA functions operator. That is certainly not the case for ccTLDs, but I got a lot of abuse for pointing this out. It only was resolved when the ICANN (ccNSO-focussed) secretariat was asked to clarify. In a post transition world, I'm not sure how easy it we will be able to draw on this experience and knowledge to back up a point. That is my fundamental concern about the imbalance between the ccNSO and GNSO. Especially a concern as the constituent parts of the GNSO are heavily policy focussed. It will be so easy for the GNSO representatives in various discussions to focus on gTLD issues (ignoring that ccTLD delegations and redelegations are actually usually well outside an ICANNic framework) and misshape the discussion accordingly. I'm not sure that the current proposed imbalance will be sustainable in the long term unless it is very clear that different needs are respected. (In the same way, in the ccTLD world, we need to be very cautious about not applying inappropriate blanket rules.) Simply ignoring the significant number of ccTLD comments about the imbalance might be an easy solution, but it is not a good compromise. I hope that this helps colleagues understand my very real concerns about our direction of travel. Martin