Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas
Hi All, In order to facilitate today’s review of comments, DT-N has formulated a review of some of the major topics identified in the related public comments and an initial design team position (including identification of areas where further discussion is required. Our summary is below: * Composition: A large number of comments focused on the composition of the IFRT, though the “asks” varied widely. Some called for greater registry representation, some called for increased representation by Advisory Committees, others called for a balance between the GNSO/ccNSO participation. One comment called to remove the CSC liaison while another called for the entire CSC to participate and for 5 liaisons to be created. The structure proposed by the working group is an effort to balance between these different positions; we note that the structure was generally derived from the outcome of the intensive working weekend (then in the context of the MRT) that followed a survey of the working group on this topic. * Geographic Representation: Some comments called out for geographic balance in the representation of the IFRT. The DT supports this principle but notes that implementation is difficult for a group of this small size, particularly where experience is key. To these ends we recommend that a principle that, to the extent possible, groups appointing more than one representative strive to have representatives from different geographic regions. * Frequency: Some comments called for reviews to be carried out more frequently. We generally feel that a review carried out every year or every other year (as called for by the comments) would be too frequent. However, we are open to suggestions made that a recommendation for the frequency of the regular reviews could be deferred to completion of the first review. * Outcomes of IFR: Some comments called for the outcomes of the IFR to be explicitly stated. While we believe that these should not be prescribed, the creation of a SCWG is identified as one possible outcome. We would be open to creating an inventory of other possible outcomes but would not want this work to confine the Review Team. * Appointment of the ccTLD Members: One comment called for the non-ccNSO ccTLD representative to be appointed by the ccNSO. We believe that the ccNSO is in the best position to appoint this representative and to communicate with all ccTLD operators about the process. We support clarifying this in the draft comment. * Scope of IFRT: One comment requested clarification that this applies only to the Naming Functions. It is the intention that the IFRT will apply only to the Naming Functions. We will ensure that this is clarified in current drafts. * Details Around Separation Review: Several comments called for more detail to be inputted about the Separation Review. We note that significant work has been carried out since the Draft Proposal to further define the separation process/mechanism (the SCWG). These processes encompass some of the sub-recommendations with respect to separation (e.g. community consultation) * Role of the Board: Some comments expressed concern about the role of the Board in the processes of implementing IFRT Recommendations or in the Separation Process. We note that this role has been limited to Board approval, which we believe is requisite in both instances. To address related concerns, in the revised process details have been added that rejection of these recommendations would have to be handled by the board in accordance with the thresholds and procedures for rejecting the output of a PDP. * Home of IFRT: Some comments raised concerns about the possibility of the IFRT sitting inside PTI and/or supported by PTI. The intent of DT-N was to have the IFRT exist within ICANN and to be defined in the ICANN Bylaws. We will make this clearer in the current draft. We will also clarify that ICANN will provide secretariat and other support services for the IFRT. Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG). Sorry for sending this out on such short order. Hope this aids today’s discussion. Best. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
Dear Stephanie Thanks for the information. In the special cases of ccTLDs. Now we have ccNSO members and ccNSO non members, we need to be clear in that. Diversity (by TLDs origin (gTLDs / ccTLDs) and by Region) is important for equilibrium in the composition of any board. Erick
El 29/5/2015, a las 2:21, Duchesneau, Stephanie <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us> escribió:
Hi All,
In order to facilitate today’s review of comments, DT-N has formulated a review of some of the major topics identified in the related public comments and an initial design team position (including identification of areas where further discussion is required. Our summary is below:
Composition: A large number of comments focused on the composition of the IFRT, though the “asks” varied widely. Some called for greater registry representation, some called for increased representation by Advisory Committees, others called for a balance between the GNSO/ccNSO participation. One comment called to remove the CSC liaison while another called for the entire CSC to participate and for 5 liaisons to be created. The structure proposed by the working group is an effort to balance between these different positions; we note that the structure was generally derived from the outcome of the intensive working weekend (then in the context of the MRT) that followed a survey of the working group on this topic. Geographic Representation: Some comments called out for geographic balance in the representation of the IFRT. The DT supports this principle but notes that implementation is difficult for a group of this small size, particularly where experience is key. To these ends we recommend that a principle that, to the extent possible, groups appointing more than one representative strive to have representatives from different geographic regions. Frequency: Some comments called for reviews to be carried out more frequently. We generally feel that a review carried out every year or every other year (as called for by the comments) would be too frequent. However, we are open to suggestions made that a recommendation for the frequency of the regular reviews could be deferred to completion of the first review. Outcomes of IFR: Some comments called for the outcomes of the IFR to be explicitly stated. While we believe that these should not be prescribed, the creation of a SCWG is identified as one possible outcome. We would be open to creating an inventory of other possible outcomes but would not want this work to confine the Review Team. Appointment of the ccTLD Members: One comment called for the non-ccNSO ccTLD representative to be appointed by the ccNSO. We believe that the ccNSO is in the best position to appoint this representative and to communicate with all ccTLD operators about the process. We support clarifying this in the draft comment. Scope of IFRT: One comment requested clarification that this applies only to the Naming Functions. It is the intention that the IFRT will apply only to the Naming Functions. We will ensure that this is clarified in current drafts. Details Around Separation Review: Several comments called for more detail to be inputted about the Separation Review. We note that significant work has been carried out since the Draft Proposal to further define the separation process/mechanism (the SCWG). These processes encompass some of the sub-recommendations with respect to separation (e.g. community consultation) Role of the Board: Some comments expressed concern about the role of the Board in the processes of implementing IFRT Recommendations or in the Separation Process. We note that this role has been limited to Board approval, which we believe is requisite in both instances. To address related concerns, in the revised process details have been added that rejection of these recommendations would have to be handled by the board in accordance with the thresholds and procedures for rejecting the output of a PDP. Home of IFRT: Some comments raised concerns about the possibility of the IFRT sitting inside PTI and/or supported by PTI. The intent of DT-N was to have the IFRT exist within ICANN and to be defined in the ICANN Bylaws. We will make this clearer in the current draft. We will also clarify that ICANN will provide secretariat and other support services for the IFRT. Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG).
Sorry for sending this out on such short order. Hope this aids today’s discussion.
Best.
Stephanie
Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Erick, I have a question for you. How would you rank the following in terms of importance for a PTI Board? · Geographic representation · Stakeholder representation · Skill set and expertise · Limited size of Board · Accountability to the overall community Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Erick Iriarte Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:35 AM To: Duchesneau, Stephanie Cc: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas Dear Stephanie Thanks for the information. In the special cases of ccTLDs. Now we have ccNSO members and ccNSO non members, we need to be clear in that. Diversity (by TLDs origin (gTLDs / ccTLDs) and by Region) is important for equilibrium in the composition of any board. Erick El 29/5/2015, a las 2:21, Duchesneau, Stephanie <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us<mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>> escribió: Hi All, In order to facilitate today's review of comments, DT-N has formulated a review of some of the major topics identified in the related public comments and an initial design team position (including identification of areas where further discussion is required. Our summary is below: * Composition: A large number of comments focused on the composition of the IFRT, though the "asks" varied widely. Some called for greater registry representation, some called for increased representation by Advisory Committees, others called for a balance between the GNSO/ccNSO participation. One comment called to remove the CSC liaison while another called for the entire CSC to participate and for 5 liaisons to be created. The structure proposed by the working group is an effort to balance between these different positions; we note that the structure was generally derived from the outcome of the intensive working weekend (then in the context of the MRT) that followed a survey of the working group on this topic. * Geographic Representation: Some comments called out for geographic balance in the representation of the IFRT. The DT supports this principle but notes that implementation is difficult for a group of this small size, particularly where experience is key. To these ends we recommend that a principle that, to the extent possible, groups appointing more than one representative strive to have representatives from different geographic regions. * Frequency: Some comments called for reviews to be carried out more frequently. We generally feel that a review carried out every year or every other year (as called for by the comments) would be too frequent. However, we are open to suggestions made that a recommendation for the frequency of the regular reviews could be deferred to completion of the first review. * Outcomes of IFR: Some comments called for the outcomes of the IFR to be explicitly stated. While we believe that these should not be prescribed, the creation of a SCWG is identified as one possible outcome. We would be open to creating an inventory of other possible outcomes but would not want this work to confine the Review Team. * Appointment of the ccTLD Members: One comment called for the non-ccNSO ccTLD representative to be appointed by the ccNSO. We believe that the ccNSO is in the best position to appoint this representative and to communicate with all ccTLD operators about the process. We support clarifying this in the draft comment. * Scope of IFRT: One comment requested clarification that this applies only to the Naming Functions. It is the intention that the IFRT will apply only to the Naming Functions. We will ensure that this is clarified in current drafts. * Details Around Separation Review: Several comments called for more detail to be inputted about the Separation Review. We note that significant work has been carried out since the Draft Proposal to further define the separation process/mechanism (the SCWG). These processes encompass some of the sub-recommendations with respect to separation (e.g. community consultation) * Role of the Board: Some comments expressed concern about the role of the Board in the processes of implementing IFRT Recommendations or in the Separation Process. We note that this role has been limited to Board approval, which we believe is requisite in both instances. To address related concerns, in the revised process details have been added that rejection of these recommendations would have to be handled by the board in accordance with the thresholds and procedures for rejecting the output of a PDP. * Home of IFRT: Some comments raised concerns about the possibility of the IFRT sitting inside PTI and/or supported by PTI. The intent of DT-N was to have the IFRT exist within ICANN and to be defined in the ICANN Bylaws. We will make this clearer in the current draft. We will also clarify that ICANN will provide secretariat and other support services for the IFRT. Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG). Sorry for sending this out on such short order. Hope this aids today's discussion. Best. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear Chuck Great question, and i answer with a question (like an old monk). What will be the specific role for PTI? if they will have political role (for example delegation/redelegation) the rank will be different to only technical role. And is necessary to know if they will be subsidiary of ICANN or will be a separate role that icann can doing (if they win that option). I really appreciated your suggestion to help the process, but i think we are two steps before the composition of the board. Erick
El 29/5/2015, a las 4:13, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> escribió:
Erick,
I have a question for you.
How would you rank the following in terms of importance for a PTI Board? · Geographic representation · Stakeholder representation · Skill set and expertise · Limited size of Board · Accountability to the overall community
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Erick Iriarte Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:35 AM To: Duchesneau, Stephanie Cc: avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas
Dear Stephanie
Thanks for the information. In the special cases of ccTLDs. Now we have ccNSO members and ccNSO non members, we need to be clear in that. Diversity (by TLDs origin (gTLDs / ccTLDs) and by Region) is important for equilibrium in the composition of any board.
Erick
El 29/5/2015, a las 2:21, Duchesneau, Stephanie <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us <mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>> escribió:
Hi All,
In order to facilitate today’s review of comments, DT-N has formulated a review of some of the major topics identified in the related public comments and an initial design team position (including identification of areas where further discussion is required. Our summary is below:
Composition: A large number of comments focused on the composition of the IFRT, though the “asks” varied widely. Some called for greater registry representation, some called for increased representation by Advisory Committees, others called for a balance between the GNSO/ccNSO participation. One comment called to remove the CSC liaison while another called for the entire CSC to participate and for 5 liaisons to be created. The structure proposed by the working group is an effort to balance between these different positions; we note that the structure was generally derived from the outcome of the intensive working weekend (then in the context of the MRT) that followed a survey of the working group on this topic. Geographic Representation: Some comments called out for geographic balance in the representation of the IFRT. The DT supports this principle but notes that implementation is difficult for a group of this small size, particularly where experience is key. To these ends we recommend that a principle that, to the extent possible, groups appointing more than one representative strive to have representatives from different geographic regions. Frequency: Some comments called for reviews to be carried out more frequently. We generally feel that a review carried out every year or every other year (as called for by the comments) would be too frequent. However, we are open to suggestions made that a recommendation for the frequency of the regular reviews could be deferred to completion of the first review. Outcomes of IFR: Some comments called for the outcomes of the IFR to be explicitly stated. While we believe that these should not be prescribed, the creation of a SCWG is identified as one possible outcome. We would be open to creating an inventory of other possible outcomes but would not want this work to confine the Review Team. Appointment of the ccTLD Members: One comment called for the non-ccNSO ccTLD representative to be appointed by the ccNSO. We believe that the ccNSO is in the best position to appoint this representative and to communicate with all ccTLD operators about the process. We support clarifying this in the draft comment. Scope of IFRT: One comment requested clarification that this applies only to the Naming Functions. It is the intention that the IFRT will apply only to the Naming Functions. We will ensure that this is clarified in current drafts. Details Around Separation Review: Several comments called for more detail to be inputted about the Separation Review. We note that significant work has been carried out since the Draft Proposal to further define the separation process/mechanism (the SCWG). These processes encompass some of the sub-recommendations with respect to separation (e.g. community consultation) Role of the Board: Some comments expressed concern about the role of the Board in the processes of implementing IFRT Recommendations or in the Separation Process. We note that this role has been limited to Board approval, which we believe is requisite in both instances. To address related concerns, in the revised process details have been added that rejection of these recommendations would have to be handled by the board in accordance with the thresholds and procedures for rejecting the output of a PDP. Home of IFRT: Some comments raised concerns about the possibility of the IFRT sitting inside PTI and/or supported by PTI. The intent of DT-N was to have the IFRT exist within ICANN and to be defined in the ICANN Bylaws. We will make this clearer in the current draft. We will also clarify that ICANN will provide secretariat and other support services for the IFRT. Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG).
Sorry for sending this out on such short order. Hope this aids today’s discussion.
Best.
Stephanie
Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
Erick, with regards to your question of the function of PTI, per the notes of meeting #53, the function of the PTI Board is to operate the subsidiary to meet, at minimum, the statutorily requirements for the subsidiary. In addition the PTI Board will have to ensure that the PTI as the subsidiary performs to meet the conditions of the contract which will encapsulate all the SLEs and other requirements that PTI is expected to meet. Best regards, Marika From: Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com<mailto:eiriarte@iriartelaw.com>> Date: Friday 29 May 2015 17:25 To: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Cc: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas Dear Chuck Great question, and i answer with a question (like an old monk). What will be the specific role for PTI? if they will have political role (for example delegation/redelegation) the rank will be different to only technical role. And is necessary to know if they will be subsidiary of ICANN or will be a separate role that icann can doing (if they win that option). I really appreciated your suggestion to help the process, but i think we are two steps before the composition of the board. Erick El 29/5/2015, a las 4:13, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> escribió: Erick, I have a question for you. How would you rank the following in terms of importance for a PTI Board? · Geographic representation · Stakeholder representation · Skill set and expertise · Limited size of Board · Accountability to the overall community Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Erick Iriarte Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:35 AM To: Duchesneau, Stephanie Cc: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas Dear Stephanie Thanks for the information. In the special cases of ccTLDs. Now we have ccNSO members and ccNSO non members, we need to be clear in that. Diversity (by TLDs origin (gTLDs / ccTLDs) and by Region) is important for equilibrium in the composition of any board. Erick El 29/5/2015, a las 2:21, Duchesneau, Stephanie <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us<mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>> escribió: Hi All, In order to facilitate today’s review of comments, DT-N has formulated a review of some of the major topics identified in the related public comments and an initial design team position (including identification of areas where further discussion is required. Our summary is below: * Composition: A large number of comments focused on the composition of the IFRT, though the “asks” varied widely. Some called for greater registry representation, some called for increased representation by Advisory Committees, others called for a balance between the GNSO/ccNSO participation. One comment called to remove the CSC liaison while another called for the entire CSC to participate and for 5 liaisons to be created. The structure proposed by the working group is an effort to balance between these different positions; we note that the structure was generally derived from the outcome of the intensive working weekend (then in the context of the MRT) that followed a survey of the working group on this topic. * Geographic Representation: Some comments called out for geographic balance in the representation of the IFRT. The DT supports this principle but notes that implementation is difficult for a group of this small size, particularly where experience is key. To these ends we recommend that a principle that, to the extent possible, groups appointing more than one representative strive to have representatives from different geographic regions. * Frequency: Some comments called for reviews to be carried out more frequently. We generally feel that a review carried out every year or every other year (as called for by the comments) would be too frequent. However, we are open to suggestions made that a recommendation for the frequency of the regular reviews could be deferred to completion of the first review. * Outcomes of IFR: Some comments called for the outcomes of the IFR to be explicitly stated. While we believe that these should not be prescribed, the creation of a SCWG is identified as one possible outcome. We would be open to creating an inventory of other possible outcomes but would not want this work to confine the Review Team. * Appointment of the ccTLD Members: One comment called for the non-ccNSO ccTLD representative to be appointed by the ccNSO. We believe that the ccNSO is in the best position to appoint this representative and to communicate with all ccTLD operators about the process. We support clarifying this in the draft comment. * Scope of IFRT: One comment requested clarification that this applies only to the Naming Functions. It is the intention that the IFRT will apply only to the Naming Functions. We will ensure that this is clarified in current drafts. * Details Around Separation Review: Several comments called for more detail to be inputted about the Separation Review. We note that significant work has been carried out since the Draft Proposal to further define the separation process/mechanism (the SCWG). These processes encompass some of the sub-recommendations with respect to separation (e.g. community consultation) * Role of the Board: Some comments expressed concern about the role of the Board in the processes of implementing IFRT Recommendations or in the Separation Process. We note that this role has been limited to Board approval, which we believe is requisite in both instances. To address related concerns, in the revised process details have been added that rejection of these recommendations would have to be handled by the board in accordance with the thresholds and procedures for rejecting the output of a PDP. * Home of IFRT: Some comments raised concerns about the possibility of the IFRT sitting inside PTI and/or supported by PTI. The intent of DT-N was to have the IFRT exist within ICANN and to be defined in the ICANN Bylaws. We will make this clearer in the current draft. We will also clarify that ICANN will provide secretariat and other support services for the IFRT. Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG). Sorry for sending this out on such short order. Hope this aids today’s discussion. Best. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Erick, Why don't you assume that (1) PTI will not be handling delegation/redelegation decisions (since one of our essential principles is separating PTI from policy) and (2) PTI will be a subsidiary (since that is the what is stated in our draft proposal, and seems to have strong (though not unanimous) support within the CWG. Greg On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Erick Iriarte <eiriarte@iriartelaw.com> wrote:
Dear Chuck
Great question, and i answer with a question (like an old monk). What will be the specific role for PTI? if they will have political role (for example delegation/redelegation) the rank will be different to only technical role. And is necessary to know if they will be subsidiary of ICANN or will be a separate role that icann can doing (if they win that option).
I really appreciated your suggestion to help the process, but i think we are two steps before the composition of the board.
Erick
El 29/5/2015, a las 4:13, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> escribió:
Erick,
I have a question for you.
How would you rank the following in terms of importance for a PTI Board? · Geographic representation · Stakeholder representation · Skill set and expertise · Limited size of Board · Accountability to the overall community
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Erick Iriarte *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2015 3:35 AM *To:* Duchesneau, Stephanie *Cc:* avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas
Dear Stephanie
Thanks for the information. In the special cases of ccTLDs. Now we have ccNSO members and ccNSO non members, we need to be clear in that. Diversity (by TLDs origin (gTLDs / ccTLDs) and by Region) is important for equilibrium in the composition of any board.
Erick
El 29/5/2015, a las 2:21, Duchesneau, Stephanie < Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us> escribió:
Hi All,
In order to facilitate today’s review of comments, DT-N has formulated a review of some of the major topics identified in the related public comments and an initial design team position (including identification of areas where further discussion is required. Our summary is below:
- *Composition: *A large number of comments focused on the composition of the IFRT, though the “asks” varied widely. Some called for greater registry representation, some called for increased representation by Advisory Committees, others called for a balance between the GNSO/ccNSO participation. One comment called to remove the CSC liaison while another called for the entire CSC to participate and for 5 liaisons to be created. The structure proposed by the working group is an effort to balance between these different positions; we note that the structure was generally derived from the outcome of the intensive working weekend (then in the context of the MRT) that followed a survey of the working group on this topic.
- *Geographic Representation: *Some comments called out for geographic balance in the representation of the IFRT. The DT supports this principle but notes that implementation is difficult for a group of this small size, particularly where experience is key. To these ends we recommend that a principle that, to the extent possible, groups appointing more than one representative strive to have representatives from different geographic regions.
- *Frequency*: Some comments called for reviews to be carried out more frequently. We generally feel that a review carried out every year or every other year (as called for by the comments) would be too frequent. However, we are open to suggestions made that a recommendation for the frequency of the regular reviews could be deferred to completion of the first review.
- *Outcomes of IFR: *Some comments called for the outcomes of the IFR to be explicitly stated. While we believe that these should not be prescribed, the creation of a SCWG is identified as one possible outcome. We would be open to creating an inventory of other possible outcomes but would not want this work to confine the Review Team.
- *Appointment of the ccTLD Members: *One comment called for the non-ccNSO ccTLD representative to be appointed by the ccNSO. We believe that the ccNSO is in the best position to appoint this representative and to communicate with all ccTLD operators about the process. We support clarifying this in the draft comment.
- *Scope of IFRT: *One comment requested clarification that this applies only to the Naming Functions. It is the intention that the IFRT will apply only to the Naming Functions. We will ensure that this is clarified in current drafts.
- *Details Around Separation Review: *Several comments called for more detail to be inputted about the Separation Review. We note that significant work has been carried out since the Draft Proposal to further define the separation process/mechanism (the SCWG). These processes encompass some of the sub-recommendations with respect to separation (e.g. community consultation)
- *Role of the Board*: Some comments expressed concern about the role of the Board in the processes of implementing IFRT Recommendations or in the Separation Process. We note that this role has been limited to Board approval, which we believe is requisite in both instances. To address related concerns, in the revised process details have been added that rejection of these recommendations would have to be handled by the board in accordance with the thresholds and procedures for rejecting the output of a PDP.
- *Home of IFRT: *Some comments raised concerns about the possibility of the IFRT sitting inside PTI and/or supported by PTI. The intent of DT-N was to have the IFRT exist within ICANN and to be defined in the ICANN Bylaws. We will make this clearer in the current draft. We will also clarify that ICANN will provide secretariat and other support services for the IFRT.
*Separation Costs: *Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG).
Sorry for sending this out on such short order. Hope this aids today’s discussion.
Best.
Stephanie
*Stephanie Duchesneau* *Neustar, Inc. / *Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 *Office:* +1.202.533.2623 *Mobile: *+1.703.731.2040 *Fax: * +1.202.533.2623 */* www.neustar.biz _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Erick, I do not believe that PTI will have either a political or policy role. They will clearly delegate/redelegate TLDs into the root but solely based on application of policies and local legal requirements; in other words they would not be making any subjective decisions in that regard. So it is my understanding that PTI's role will be a technical one. Also, the direction the CWG is going in right now is that PTI would be an affiliate of ICANN. Chuck From: Erick Iriarte [mailto:eiriarte@iriartelaw.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 11:25 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Duchesneau, Stephanie; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas Dear Chuck Great question, and i answer with a question (like an old monk). What will be the specific role for PTI? if they will have political role (for example delegation/redelegation) the rank will be different to only technical role. And is necessary to know if they will be subsidiary of ICANN or will be a separate role that icann can doing (if they win that option). I really appreciated your suggestion to help the process, but i think we are two steps before the composition of the board. Erick El 29/5/2015, a las 4:13, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> escribió: Erick, I have a question for you. How would you rank the following in terms of importance for a PTI Board? * Geographic representation * Stakeholder representation * Skill set and expertise * Limited size of Board * Accountability to the overall community Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Erick Iriarte Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:35 AM To: Duchesneau, Stephanie Cc: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas Dear Stephanie Thanks for the information. In the special cases of ccTLDs. Now we have ccNSO members and ccNSO non members, we need to be clear in that. Diversity (by TLDs origin (gTLDs / ccTLDs) and by Region) is important for equilibrium in the composition of any board. Erick El 29/5/2015, a las 2:21, Duchesneau, Stephanie <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us<mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>> escribió: Hi All, In order to facilitate today's review of comments, DT-N has formulated a review of some of the major topics identified in the related public comments and an initial design team position (including identification of areas where further discussion is required. Our summary is below: * Composition: A large number of comments focused on the composition of the IFRT, though the "asks" varied widely. Some called for greater registry representation, some called for increased representation by Advisory Committees, others called for a balance between the GNSO/ccNSO participation. One comment called to remove the CSC liaison while another called for the entire CSC to participate and for 5 liaisons to be created. The structure proposed by the working group is an effort to balance between these different positions; we note that the structure was generally derived from the outcome of the intensive working weekend (then in the context of the MRT) that followed a survey of the working group on this topic. * Geographic Representation: Some comments called out for geographic balance in the representation of the IFRT. The DT supports this principle but notes that implementation is difficult for a group of this small size, particularly where experience is key. To these ends we recommend that a principle that, to the extent possible, groups appointing more than one representative strive to have representatives from different geographic regions. * Frequency: Some comments called for reviews to be carried out more frequently. We generally feel that a review carried out every year or every other year (as called for by the comments) would be too frequent. However, we are open to suggestions made that a recommendation for the frequency of the regular reviews could be deferred to completion of the first review. * Outcomes of IFR: Some comments called for the outcomes of the IFR to be explicitly stated. While we believe that these should not be prescribed, the creation of a SCWG is identified as one possible outcome. We would be open to creating an inventory of other possible outcomes but would not want this work to confine the Review Team. * Appointment of the ccTLD Members: One comment called for the non-ccNSO ccTLD representative to be appointed by the ccNSO. We believe that the ccNSO is in the best position to appoint this representative and to communicate with all ccTLD operators about the process. We support clarifying this in the draft comment. * Scope of IFRT: One comment requested clarification that this applies only to the Naming Functions. It is the intention that the IFRT will apply only to the Naming Functions. We will ensure that this is clarified in current drafts. * Details Around Separation Review: Several comments called for more detail to be inputted about the Separation Review. We note that significant work has been carried out since the Draft Proposal to further define the separation process/mechanism (the SCWG). These processes encompass some of the sub-recommendations with respect to separation (e.g. community consultation) * Role of the Board: Some comments expressed concern about the role of the Board in the processes of implementing IFRT Recommendations or in the Separation Process. We note that this role has been limited to Board approval, which we believe is requisite in both instances. To address related concerns, in the revised process details have been added that rejection of these recommendations would have to be handled by the board in accordance with the thresholds and procedures for rejecting the output of a PDP. * Home of IFRT: Some comments raised concerns about the possibility of the IFRT sitting inside PTI and/or supported by PTI. The intent of DT-N was to have the IFRT exist within ICANN and to be defined in the ICANN Bylaws. We will make this clearer in the current draft. We will also clarify that ICANN will provide secretariat and other support services for the IFRT. Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG). Sorry for sending this out on such short order. Hope this aids today's discussion. Best. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear Chuck i really appreciated if we can see the comments of LACTLD (regional ccTLD organization from LAC) where that doubts was explained. And also i have the same doubts, if PTI is a technical body, why they need a special board or why they need to be a subsidiary operation outside icann? Erick
El 29/5/2015, a las 11:38, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> escribió:
Erick,
I do not believe that PTI will have either a political or policy role. They will clearly delegate/redelegate TLDs into the root but solely based on application of policies and local legal requirements; in other words they would not be making any subjective decisions in that regard. So it is my understanding that PTI’s role will be a technical one.
Also, the direction the CWG is going in right now is that PTI would be an affiliate of ICANN.
Chuck
From: Erick Iriarte [mailto:eiriarte@iriartelaw.com <mailto:eiriarte@iriartelaw.com>] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 11:25 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Duchesneau, Stephanie; avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas
Dear Chuck
Great question, and i answer with a question (like an old monk). What will be the specific role for PTI? if they will have political role (for example delegation/redelegation) the rank will be different to only technical role. And is necessary to know if they will be subsidiary of ICANN or will be a separate role that icann can doing (if they win that option).
I really appreciated your suggestion to help the process, but i think we are two steps before the composition of the board.
Erick
El 29/5/2015, a las 4:13, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> escribió:
Erick,
I have a question for you.
How would you rank the following in terms of importance for a PTI Board? · Geographic representation · Stakeholder representation · Skill set and expertise · Limited size of Board · Accountability to the overall community
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Erick Iriarte Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:35 AM To: Duchesneau, Stephanie Cc: avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas
Dear Stephanie
Thanks for the information. In the special cases of ccTLDs. Now we have ccNSO members and ccNSO non members, we need to be clear in that. Diversity (by TLDs origin (gTLDs / ccTLDs) and by Region) is important for equilibrium in the composition of any board.
Erick
El 29/5/2015, a las 2:21, Duchesneau, Stephanie <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us <mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>> escribió:
Hi All,
In order to facilitate today’s review of comments, DT-N has formulated a review of some of the major topics identified in the related public comments and an initial design team position (including identification of areas where further discussion is required. Our summary is below:
Composition: A large number of comments focused on the composition of the IFRT, though the “asks” varied widely. Some called for greater registry representation, some called for increased representation by Advisory Committees, others called for a balance between the GNSO/ccNSO participation. One comment called to remove the CSC liaison while another called for the entire CSC to participate and for 5 liaisons to be created. The structure proposed by the working group is an effort to balance between these different positions; we note that the structure was generally derived from the outcome of the intensive working weekend (then in the context of the MRT) that followed a survey of the working group on this topic. Geographic Representation: Some comments called out for geographic balance in the representation of the IFRT. The DT supports this principle but notes that implementation is difficult for a group of this small size, particularly where experience is key. To these ends we recommend that a principle that, to the extent possible, groups appointing more than one representative strive to have representatives from different geographic regions. Frequency: Some comments called for reviews to be carried out more frequently. We generally feel that a review carried out every year or every other year (as called for by the comments) would be too frequent. However, we are open to suggestions made that a recommendation for the frequency of the regular reviews could be deferred to completion of the first review. Outcomes of IFR: Some comments called for the outcomes of the IFR to be explicitly stated. While we believe that these should not be prescribed, the creation of a SCWG is identified as one possible outcome. We would be open to creating an inventory of other possible outcomes but would not want this work to confine the Review Team. Appointment of the ccTLD Members: One comment called for the non-ccNSO ccTLD representative to be appointed by the ccNSO. We believe that the ccNSO is in the best position to appoint this representative and to communicate with all ccTLD operators about the process. We support clarifying this in the draft comment. Scope of IFRT: One comment requested clarification that this applies only to the Naming Functions. It is the intention that the IFRT will apply only to the Naming Functions. We will ensure that this is clarified in current drafts. Details Around Separation Review: Several comments called for more detail to be inputted about the Separation Review. We note that significant work has been carried out since the Draft Proposal to further define the separation process/mechanism (the SCWG). These processes encompass some of the sub-recommendations with respect to separation (e.g. community consultation) Role of the Board: Some comments expressed concern about the role of the Board in the processes of implementing IFRT Recommendations or in the Separation Process. We note that this role has been limited to Board approval, which we believe is requisite in both instances. To address related concerns, in the revised process details have been added that rejection of these recommendations would have to be handled by the board in accordance with the thresholds and procedures for rejecting the output of a PDP. Home of IFRT: Some comments raised concerns about the possibility of the IFRT sitting inside PTI and/or supported by PTI. The intent of DT-N was to have the IFRT exist within ICANN and to be defined in the ICANN Bylaws. We will make this clearer in the current draft. We will also clarify that ICANN will provide secretariat and other support services for the IFRT. Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG).
Sorry for sending this out on such short order. Hope this aids today’s discussion.
Best.
Stephanie
Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
Erick, It's all visible on the IANA CWG Wiki (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IANA... ) and the public comment site (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04... ). I do not have time to walk you through it. There has been large amounts of discussing in the CWG and lots of legal advice on these issues. Chuck From: Erick Iriarte [mailto:eiriarte@iriartelaw.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 5:04 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Duchesneau, Stephanie; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas Dear Chuck i really appreciated if we can see the comments of LACTLD (regional ccTLD organization from LAC) where that doubts was explained. And also i have the same doubts, if PTI is a technical body, why they need a special board or why they need to be a subsidiary operation outside icann? Erick El 29/5/2015, a las 11:38, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> escribió: Erick, I do not believe that PTI will have either a political or policy role. They will clearly delegate/redelegate TLDs into the root but solely based on application of policies and local legal requirements; in other words they would not be making any subjective decisions in that regard. So it is my understanding that PTI's role will be a technical one. Also, the direction the CWG is going in right now is that PTI would be an affiliate of ICANN. Chuck From: Erick Iriarte [mailto:eiriarte@iriartelaw.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 11:25 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Duchesneau, Stephanie; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas Dear Chuck Great question, and i answer with a question (like an old monk). What will be the specific role for PTI? if they will have political role (for example delegation/redelegation) the rank will be different to only technical role. And is necessary to know if they will be subsidiary of ICANN or will be a separate role that icann can doing (if they win that option). I really appreciated your suggestion to help the process, but i think we are two steps before the composition of the board. Erick El 29/5/2015, a las 4:13, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> escribió: Erick, I have a question for you. How would you rank the following in terms of importance for a PTI Board? * Geographic representation * Stakeholder representation * Skill set and expertise * Limited size of Board * Accountability to the overall community Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Erick Iriarte Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:35 AM To: Duchesneau, Stephanie Cc: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas Dear Stephanie Thanks for the information. In the special cases of ccTLDs. Now we have ccNSO members and ccNSO non members, we need to be clear in that. Diversity (by TLDs origin (gTLDs / ccTLDs) and by Region) is important for equilibrium in the composition of any board. Erick El 29/5/2015, a las 2:21, Duchesneau, Stephanie <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us<mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>> escribió: Hi All, In order to facilitate today's review of comments, DT-N has formulated a review of some of the major topics identified in the related public comments and an initial design team position (including identification of areas where further discussion is required. Our summary is below: * Composition: A large number of comments focused on the composition of the IFRT, though the "asks" varied widely. Some called for greater registry representation, some called for increased representation by Advisory Committees, others called for a balance between the GNSO/ccNSO participation. One comment called to remove the CSC liaison while another called for the entire CSC to participate and for 5 liaisons to be created. The structure proposed by the working group is an effort to balance between these different positions; we note that the structure was generally derived from the outcome of the intensive working weekend (then in the context of the MRT) that followed a survey of the working group on this topic. * Geographic Representation: Some comments called out for geographic balance in the representation of the IFRT. The DT supports this principle but notes that implementation is difficult for a group of this small size, particularly where experience is key. To these ends we recommend that a principle that, to the extent possible, groups appointing more than one representative strive to have representatives from different geographic regions. * Frequency: Some comments called for reviews to be carried out more frequently. We generally feel that a review carried out every year or every other year (as called for by the comments) would be too frequent. However, we are open to suggestions made that a recommendation for the frequency of the regular reviews could be deferred to completion of the first review. * Outcomes of IFR: Some comments called for the outcomes of the IFR to be explicitly stated. While we believe that these should not be prescribed, the creation of a SCWG is identified as one possible outcome. We would be open to creating an inventory of other possible outcomes but would not want this work to confine the Review Team. * Appointment of the ccTLD Members: One comment called for the non-ccNSO ccTLD representative to be appointed by the ccNSO. We believe that the ccNSO is in the best position to appoint this representative and to communicate with all ccTLD operators about the process. We support clarifying this in the draft comment. * Scope of IFRT: One comment requested clarification that this applies only to the Naming Functions. It is the intention that the IFRT will apply only to the Naming Functions. We will ensure that this is clarified in current drafts. * Details Around Separation Review: Several comments called for more detail to be inputted about the Separation Review. We note that significant work has been carried out since the Draft Proposal to further define the separation process/mechanism (the SCWG). These processes encompass some of the sub-recommendations with respect to separation (e.g. community consultation) * Role of the Board: Some comments expressed concern about the role of the Board in the processes of implementing IFRT Recommendations or in the Separation Process. We note that this role has been limited to Board approval, which we believe is requisite in both instances. To address related concerns, in the revised process details have been added that rejection of these recommendations would have to be handled by the board in accordance with the thresholds and procedures for rejecting the output of a PDP. * Home of IFRT: Some comments raised concerns about the possibility of the IFRT sitting inside PTI and/or supported by PTI. The intent of DT-N was to have the IFRT exist within ICANN and to be defined in the ICANN Bylaws. We will make this clearer in the current draft. We will also clarify that ICANN will provide secretariat and other support services for the IFRT. Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG). Sorry for sending this out on such short order. Hope this aids today's discussion. Best. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I consider all this as the criteria to be part of ITP. Geographic representation: Stakeholder representation Skill set and expertise Limited size of Board Accountability to the overall community *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECICANN/AFRALO Member* *ISOC Member* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe@gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2015-05-29 10:13 GMT+01:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Erick,
I have a question for you.
How would you rank the following in terms of importance for a PTI Board?
· Geographic representation
· Stakeholder representation
· Skill set and expertise
· Limited size of Board
· Accountability to the overall community
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Erick Iriarte *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2015 3:35 AM *To:* Duchesneau, Stephanie *Cc:* avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas
Dear Stephanie
Thanks for the information. In the special cases of ccTLDs. Now we have ccNSO members and ccNSO non members, we need to be clear in that. Diversity (by TLDs origin (gTLDs / ccTLDs) and by Region) is important for equilibrium in the composition of any board.
Erick
El 29/5/2015, a las 2:21, Duchesneau, Stephanie < Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us> escribió:
Hi All,
In order to facilitate today’s review of comments, DT-N has formulated a review of some of the major topics identified in the related public comments and an initial design team position (including identification of areas where further discussion is required. Our summary is below:
- *Composition: *A large number of comments focused on the composition of the IFRT, though the “asks” varied widely. Some called for greater registry representation, some called for increased representation by Advisory Committees, others called for a balance between the GNSO/ccNSO participation. One comment called to remove the CSC liaison while another called for the entire CSC to participate and for 5 liaisons to be created. The structure proposed by the working group is an effort to balance between these different positions; we note that the structure was generally derived from the outcome of the intensive working weekend (then in the context of the MRT) that followed a survey of the working group on this topic.
- *Geographic Representation: *Some comments called out for geographic balance in the representation of the IFRT. The DT supports this principle but notes that implementation is difficult for a group of this small size, particularly where experience is key. To these ends we recommend that a principle that, to the extent possible, groups appointing more than one representative strive to have representatives from different geographic regions.
- *Frequency*: Some comments called for reviews to be carried out more frequently. We generally feel that a review carried out every year or every other year (as called for by the comments) would be too frequent. However, we are open to suggestions made that a recommendation for the frequency of the regular reviews could be deferred to completion of the first review.
- *Outcomes of IFR: *Some comments called for the outcomes of the IFR to be explicitly stated. While we believe that these should not be prescribed, the creation of a SCWG is identified as one possible outcome. We would be open to creating an inventory of other possible outcomes but would not want this work to confine the Review Team.
- *Appointment of the ccTLD Members: *One comment called for the non-ccNSO ccTLD representative to be appointed by the ccNSO. We believe that the ccNSO is in the best position to appoint this representative and to communicate with all ccTLD operators about the process. We support clarifying this in the draft comment.
- *Scope of IFRT: *One comment requested clarification that this applies only to the Naming Functions. It is the intention that the IFRT will apply only to the Naming Functions. We will ensure that this is clarified in current drafts.
- *Details Around Separation Review: *Several comments called for more detail to be inputted about the Separation Review. We note that significant work has been carried out since the Draft Proposal to further define the separation process/mechanism (the SCWG). These processes encompass some of the sub-recommendations with respect to separation (e.g. community consultation)
- *Role of the Board*: Some comments expressed concern about the role of the Board in the processes of implementing IFRT Recommendations or in the Separation Process. We note that this role has been limited to Board approval, which we believe is requisite in both instances. To address related concerns, in the revised process details have been added that rejection of these recommendations would have to be handled by the board in accordance with the thresholds and procedures for rejecting the output of a PDP.
- *Home of IFRT: *Some comments raised concerns about the possibility of the IFRT sitting inside PTI and/or supported by PTI. The intent of DT-N was to have the IFRT exist within ICANN and to be defined in the ICANN Bylaws. We will make this clearer in the current draft. We will also clarify that ICANN will provide secretariat and other support services for the IFRT.
*Separation Costs: *Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG).
Sorry for sending this out on such short order. Hope this aids today’s discussion.
Best.
Stephanie
*Stephanie Duchesneau*
*Neustar, Inc. / *Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 *Office:* +1.202.533.2623 *Mobile: *+1.703.731.2040 *Fax: * +1.202.533.2623 */* www.neustar.biz
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Thanks Schombe. Are the criteria listed in order of priority? In other words, do you rank geographic representation as the most important criterion, etc.? Chuck From: Baudouin SCHOMBE [mailto:b.schombe@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 12:51 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Erick Iriarte; Duchesneau, Stephanie; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas I consider all this as the criteria to be part of ITP. Geographic representation: Stakeholder representation Skill set and expertise Limited size of Board Accountability to the overall community SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC ICANN/AFRALO Member ISOC Member Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe@gmail.com<mailto:b.schombe@gmail.com> skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2015-05-29 10:13 GMT+01:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>: Erick, I have a question for you. How would you rank the following in terms of importance for a PTI Board? • Geographic representation • Stakeholder representation • Skill set and expertise • Limited size of Board • Accountability to the overall community Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Erick Iriarte Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:35 AM To: Duchesneau, Stephanie Cc: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas Dear Stephanie Thanks for the information. In the special cases of ccTLDs. Now we have ccNSO members and ccNSO non members, we need to be clear in that. Diversity (by TLDs origin (gTLDs / ccTLDs) and by Region) is important for equilibrium in the composition of any board. Erick El 29/5/2015, a las 2:21, Duchesneau, Stephanie <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us<mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>> escribió: Hi All, In order to facilitate today’s review of comments, DT-N has formulated a review of some of the major topics identified in the related public comments and an initial design team position (including identification of areas where further discussion is required. Our summary is below: * Composition: A large number of comments focused on the composition of the IFRT, though the “asks” varied widely. Some called for greater registry representation, some called for increased representation by Advisory Committees, others called for a balance between the GNSO/ccNSO participation. One comment called to remove the CSC liaison while another called for the entire CSC to participate and for 5 liaisons to be created. The structure proposed by the working group is an effort to balance between these different positions; we note that the structure was generally derived from the outcome of the intensive working weekend (then in the context of the MRT) that followed a survey of the working group on this topic. * Geographic Representation: Some comments called out for geographic balance in the representation of the IFRT. The DT supports this principle but notes that implementation is difficult for a group of this small size, particularly where experience is key. To these ends we recommend that a principle that, to the extent possible, groups appointing more than one representative strive to have representatives from different geographic regions. * Frequency: Some comments called for reviews to be carried out more frequently. We generally feel that a review carried out every year or every other year (as called for by the comments) would be too frequent. However, we are open to suggestions made that a recommendation for the frequency of the regular reviews could be deferred to completion of the first review. * Outcomes of IFR: Some comments called for the outcomes of the IFR to be explicitly stated. While we believe that these should not be prescribed, the creation of a SCWG is identified as one possible outcome. We would be open to creating an inventory of other possible outcomes but would not want this work to confine the Review Team. * Appointment of the ccTLD Members: One comment called for the non-ccNSO ccTLD representative to be appointed by the ccNSO. We believe that the ccNSO is in the best position to appoint this representative and to communicate with all ccTLD operators about the process. We support clarifying this in the draft comment. * Scope of IFRT: One comment requested clarification that this applies only to the Naming Functions. It is the intention that the IFRT will apply only to the Naming Functions. We will ensure that this is clarified in current drafts. * Details Around Separation Review: Several comments called for more detail to be inputted about the Separation Review. We note that significant work has been carried out since the Draft Proposal to further define the separation process/mechanism (the SCWG). These processes encompass some of the sub-recommendations with respect to separation (e.g. community consultation) * Role of the Board: Some comments expressed concern about the role of the Board in the processes of implementing IFRT Recommendations or in the Separation Process. We note that this role has been limited to Board approval, which we believe is requisite in both instances. To address related concerns, in the revised process details have been added that rejection of these recommendations would have to be handled by the board in accordance with the thresholds and procedures for rejecting the output of a PDP. * Home of IFRT: Some comments raised concerns about the possibility of the IFRT sitting inside PTI and/or supported by PTI. The intent of DT-N was to have the IFRT exist within ICANN and to be defined in the ICANN Bylaws. We will make this clearer in the current draft. We will also clarify that ICANN will provide secretariat and other support services for the IFRT. Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG). Sorry for sending this out on such short order. Hope this aids today’s discussion. Best. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623<tel:%2B1.202.533.2623> Mobile: +1.703.731.2040<tel:%2B1.703.731.2040> Fax: +1.202.533.2623<tel:%2B1.202.533.2623> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Good evening: Since Eric and Baudouin ask, may I have a go at this:
criteria listed in order of priority ...
1. Accountability to the overall community 2. Geographic representation
3. Stakeholder representation 4. Skill set and expertise 5. Limited size of Board Comments: I rate Skill Set and Expertise in the PTI Board itself, low, because the essential skills must in any event be in the IANA staff, as they are at present, we are assured. The Director of IANA should be a non-voting member of the PTI Board I rate accountability and geographic representation high, reflecting ICANN's accumulated experience in this respect over the past 17 years. For the PTI, I do not rate stakeholder representation very high (which stakeholders?) because the Registries (both types) would apparently have a privileged role in the CSC, which is enough for operational purposes. What is quite clear is that a 'de minimis' technical PTI Board for an 'Internal' IANA would be absolutely incompatible with an eventually 'separated' IANA, for in the latter case the Full Monty of ICANN style multistakeholder accountability would be required. However, as I have said before, I am not convinced that we need a PTI Board atall for the internal solution. The accountability issues within ICANN must be resolved, but once, not twice. Regards CW On 29 May 2015, at 23:03, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks Schombe. Are the criteria listed in order of priority? In other words, do you rank geographic representation as the most important criterion, etc.?
Chuck
From: Baudouin SCHOMBE [mailto:b.schombe@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 12:51 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Erick Iriarte; Duchesneau, Stephanie; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas
I consider all this as the criteria to be part of ITP.
Geographic representation: Stakeholder representation
Skill set and expertise
Limited size of Board
Accountability to the overall community
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC ICANN/AFRALO Member ISOC Member Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe@gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr
2015-05-29 10:13 GMT+01:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>: Erick,
I have a question for you.
How would you rank the following in terms of importance for a PTI Board? · Geographic representation
· Stakeholder representation
· Skill set and expertise
· Limited size of Board
· Accountability to the overall community
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Erick Iriarte Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:35 AM To: Duchesneau, Stephanie Cc: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas
Dear Stephanie
Thanks for the information. In the special cases of ccTLDs. Now we have ccNSO members and ccNSO non members, we need to be clear in that. Diversity (by TLDs origin (gTLDs / ccTLDs) and by Region) is important for equilibrium in the composition of any board.
Erick
El 29/5/2015, a las 2:21, Duchesneau, Stephanie <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us> escribió:
Hi All,
In order to facilitate today’s review of comments, DT-N has formulated a review of some of the major topics identified in the related public comments and an initial design team position (including identification of areas where further discussion is required. Our summary is below:
Composition: A large number of comments focused on the composition of the IFRT, though the “asks” varied widely. Some called for greater registry representation, some called for increased representation by Advisory Committees, others called for a balance between the GNSO/ccNSO participation. One comment called to remove the CSC liaison while another called for the entire CSC to participate and for 5 liaisons to be created. The structure proposed by the working group is an effort to balance between these different positions; we note that the structure was generally derived from the outcome of the intensive working weekend (then in the context of the MRT) that followed a survey of the working group on this topic. Geographic Representation: Some comments called out for geographic balance in the representation of the IFRT. The DT supports this principle but notes that implementation is difficult for a group of this small size, particularly where experience is key. To these ends we recommend that a principle that, to the extent possible, groups appointing more than one representative strive to have representatives from different geographic regions. Frequency: Some comments called for reviews to be carried out more frequently. We generally feel that a review carried out every year or every other year (as called for by the comments) would be too frequent. However, we are open to suggestions made that a recommendation for the frequency of the regular reviews could be deferred to completion of the first review. Outcomes of IFR: Some comments called for the outcomes of the IFR to be explicitly stated. While we believe that these should not be prescribed, the creation of a SCWG is identified as one possible outcome. We would be open to creating an inventory of other possible outcomes but would not want this work to confine the Review Team. Appointment of the ccTLD Members: One comment called for the non-ccNSO ccTLD representative to be appointed by the ccNSO. We believe that the ccNSO is in the best position to appoint this representative and to communicate with all ccTLD operators about the process. We support clarifying this in the draft comment. Scope of IFRT: One comment requested clarification that this applies only to the Naming Functions. It is the intention that the IFRT will apply only to the Naming Functions. We will ensure that this is clarified in current drafts. Details Around Separation Review: Several comments called for more detail to be inputted about the Separation Review. We note that significant work has been carried out since the Draft Proposal to further define the separation process/mechanism (the SCWG). These processes encompass some of the sub-recommendations with respect to separation (e.g. community consultation) Role of the Board: Some comments expressed concern about the role of the Board in the processes of implementing IFRT Recommendations or in the Separation Process. We note that this role has been limited to Board approval, which we believe is requisite in both instances. To address related concerns, in the revised process details have been added that rejection of these recommendations would have to be handled by the board in accordance with the thresholds and procedures for rejecting the output of a PDP. Home of IFRT: Some comments raised concerns about the possibility of the IFRT sitting inside PTI and/or supported by PTI. The intent of DT-N was to have the IFRT exist within ICANN and to be defined in the ICANN Bylaws. We will make this clearer in the current draft. We will also clarify that ICANN will provide secretariat and other support services for the IFRT. Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG).
Sorry for sending this out on such short order. Hope this aids today’s discussion.
Best.
Stephanie
Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Erick, I should have prefaced by question with the following: I know that Stephanie's message was about the IFR and Separation and I narrowed it to focus on the PTI Board. I did that because I was curious about your positions regarding geographic diversity with regard to the PTI Board. The same question could be asked with regard to the IFRT. And another question I have is this: Would your prioritization of the five items be the same for the IFRT as for the PTI Board? Chuck From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 5:13 AM To: 'Erick Iriarte'; Duchesneau, Stephanie Cc: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas Erick, I have a question for you. How would you rank the following in terms of importance for a PTI Board? · Geographic representation · Stakeholder representation · Skill set and expertise · Limited size of Board · Accountability to the overall community Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Erick Iriarte Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:35 AM To: Duchesneau, Stephanie Cc: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas Dear Stephanie Thanks for the information. In the special cases of ccTLDs. Now we have ccNSO members and ccNSO non members, we need to be clear in that. Diversity (by TLDs origin (gTLDs / ccTLDs) and by Region) is important for equilibrium in the composition of any board. Erick El 29/5/2015, a las 2:21, Duchesneau, Stephanie <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us<mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>> escribió: Hi All, In order to facilitate today's review of comments, DT-N has formulated a review of some of the major topics identified in the related public comments and an initial design team position (including identification of areas where further discussion is required. Our summary is below: * Composition: A large number of comments focused on the composition of the IFRT, though the "asks" varied widely. Some called for greater registry representation, some called for increased representation by Advisory Committees, others called for a balance between the GNSO/ccNSO participation. One comment called to remove the CSC liaison while another called for the entire CSC to participate and for 5 liaisons to be created. The structure proposed by the working group is an effort to balance between these different positions; we note that the structure was generally derived from the outcome of the intensive working weekend (then in the context of the MRT) that followed a survey of the working group on this topic. * Geographic Representation: Some comments called out for geographic balance in the representation of the IFRT. The DT supports this principle but notes that implementation is difficult for a group of this small size, particularly where experience is key. To these ends we recommend that a principle that, to the extent possible, groups appointing more than one representative strive to have representatives from different geographic regions. * Frequency: Some comments called for reviews to be carried out more frequently. We generally feel that a review carried out every year or every other year (as called for by the comments) would be too frequent. However, we are open to suggestions made that a recommendation for the frequency of the regular reviews could be deferred to completion of the first review. * Outcomes of IFR: Some comments called for the outcomes of the IFR to be explicitly stated. While we believe that these should not be prescribed, the creation of a SCWG is identified as one possible outcome. We would be open to creating an inventory of other possible outcomes but would not want this work to confine the Review Team. * Appointment of the ccTLD Members: One comment called for the non-ccNSO ccTLD representative to be appointed by the ccNSO. We believe that the ccNSO is in the best position to appoint this representative and to communicate with all ccTLD operators about the process. We support clarifying this in the draft comment. * Scope of IFRT: One comment requested clarification that this applies only to the Naming Functions. It is the intention that the IFRT will apply only to the Naming Functions. We will ensure that this is clarified in current drafts. * Details Around Separation Review: Several comments called for more detail to be inputted about the Separation Review. We note that significant work has been carried out since the Draft Proposal to further define the separation process/mechanism (the SCWG). These processes encompass some of the sub-recommendations with respect to separation (e.g. community consultation) * Role of the Board: Some comments expressed concern about the role of the Board in the processes of implementing IFRT Recommendations or in the Separation Process. We note that this role has been limited to Board approval, which we believe is requisite in both instances. To address related concerns, in the revised process details have been added that rejection of these recommendations would have to be handled by the board in accordance with the thresholds and procedures for rejecting the output of a PDP. * Home of IFRT: Some comments raised concerns about the possibility of the IFRT sitting inside PTI and/or supported by PTI. The intent of DT-N was to have the IFRT exist within ICANN and to be defined in the ICANN Bylaws. We will make this clearer in the current draft. We will also clarify that ICANN will provide secretariat and other support services for the IFRT. Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG). Sorry for sending this out on such short order. Hope this aids today's discussion. Best. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Good question, Chuck. I know you didn't ask me, but my ranking would be 1. Neutrality or impartiality with respect to policy. I.e., PTI board should not re-litigate policy battles. Many public comments call for this and I think one of the biggest mistakes we could make in this transition is to design PTI in a way that encourages or facilitates IANA to circumvent or intervene in policy. 2. Skill set and expertise 3. Limited size 4. Stakeholder representation (which to my mind encompasses and subsumes geographic diversity. Please don't tell me that anyone from North America "represents" me because they are from NA or speak English) 5. Accountability to the overall community. I put this last not because I don't value accountability but because I think the contract, the SLA, the CSC, the IFR and the separation process all deal specifically with PTI accountability _directly_, and the categories of board representation are a very minor element in accountability of the PTI board From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 6:21 AM To: Erick Iriarte; Duchesneau, Stephanie Cc: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas Erick, I should have prefaced by question with the following: I know that Stephanie's message was about the IFR and Separation and I narrowed it to focus on the PTI Board. I did that because I was curious about your positions regarding geographic diversity with regard to the PTI Board. The same question could be asked with regard to the IFRT. And another question I have is this: Would your prioritization of the five items be the same for the IFRT as for the PTI Board? Chuck From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 5:13 AM To: 'Erick Iriarte'; Duchesneau, Stephanie Cc: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas Erick, I have a question for you. How would you rank the following in terms of importance for a PTI Board? · Geographic representation · Stakeholder representation · Skill set and expertise · Limited size of Board · Accountability to the overall community Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Erick Iriarte Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:35 AM To: Duchesneau, Stephanie Cc: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas Dear Stephanie Thanks for the information. In the special cases of ccTLDs. Now we have ccNSO members and ccNSO non members, we need to be clear in that. Diversity (by TLDs origin (gTLDs / ccTLDs) and by Region) is important for equilibrium in the composition of any board. Erick El 29/5/2015, a las 2:21, Duchesneau, Stephanie <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us<mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>> escribió: Hi All, In order to facilitate today's review of comments, DT-N has formulated a review of some of the major topics identified in the related public comments and an initial design team position (including identification of areas where further discussion is required. Our summary is below: * Composition: A large number of comments focused on the composition of the IFRT, though the "asks" varied widely. Some called for greater registry representation, some called for increased representation by Advisory Committees, others called for a balance between the GNSO/ccNSO participation. One comment called to remove the CSC liaison while another called for the entire CSC to participate and for 5 liaisons to be created. The structure proposed by the working group is an effort to balance between these different positions; we note that the structure was generally derived from the outcome of the intensive working weekend (then in the context of the MRT) that followed a survey of the working group on this topic. * Geographic Representation: Some comments called out for geographic balance in the representation of the IFRT. The DT supports this principle but notes that implementation is difficult for a group of this small size, particularly where experience is key. To these ends we recommend that a principle that, to the extent possible, groups appointing more than one representative strive to have representatives from different geographic regions. * Frequency: Some comments called for reviews to be carried out more frequently. We generally feel that a review carried out every year or every other year (as called for by the comments) would be too frequent. However, we are open to suggestions made that a recommendation for the frequency of the regular reviews could be deferred to completion of the first review. * Outcomes of IFR: Some comments called for the outcomes of the IFR to be explicitly stated. While we believe that these should not be prescribed, the creation of a SCWG is identified as one possible outcome. We would be open to creating an inventory of other possible outcomes but would not want this work to confine the Review Team. * Appointment of the ccTLD Members: One comment called for the non-ccNSO ccTLD representative to be appointed by the ccNSO. We believe that the ccNSO is in the best position to appoint this representative and to communicate with all ccTLD operators about the process. We support clarifying this in the draft comment. * Scope of IFRT: One comment requested clarification that this applies only to the Naming Functions. It is the intention that the IFRT will apply only to the Naming Functions. We will ensure that this is clarified in current drafts. * Details Around Separation Review: Several comments called for more detail to be inputted about the Separation Review. We note that significant work has been carried out since the Draft Proposal to further define the separation process/mechanism (the SCWG). These processes encompass some of the sub-recommendations with respect to separation (e.g. community consultation) * Role of the Board: Some comments expressed concern about the role of the Board in the processes of implementing IFRT Recommendations or in the Separation Process. We note that this role has been limited to Board approval, which we believe is requisite in both instances. To address related concerns, in the revised process details have been added that rejection of these recommendations would have to be handled by the board in accordance with the thresholds and procedures for rejecting the output of a PDP. * Home of IFRT: Some comments raised concerns about the possibility of the IFRT sitting inside PTI and/or supported by PTI. The intent of DT-N was to have the IFRT exist within ICANN and to be defined in the ICANN Bylaws. We will make this clearer in the current draft. We will also clarify that ICANN will provide secretariat and other support services for the IFRT. Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG). Sorry for sending this out on such short order. Hope this aids today's discussion. Best. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Thanks Milton. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 9:41 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Erick Iriarte; Duchesneau, Stephanie Cc: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas Good question, Chuck. I know you didn't ask me, but my ranking would be 1. Neutrality or impartiality with respect to policy. I.e., PTI board should not re-litigate policy battles. Many public comments call for this and I think one of the biggest mistakes we could make in this transition is to design PTI in a way that encourages or facilitates IANA to circumvent or intervene in policy. 2. Skill set and expertise 3. Limited size 4. Stakeholder representation (which to my mind encompasses and subsumes geographic diversity. Please don't tell me that anyone from North America "represents" me because they are from NA or speak English) 5. Accountability to the overall community. I put this last not because I don't value accountability but because I think the contract, the SLA, the CSC, the IFR and the separation process all deal specifically with PTI accountability _directly_, and the categories of board representation are a very minor element in accountability of the PTI board From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 6:21 AM To: Erick Iriarte; Duchesneau, Stephanie Cc: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas Erick, I should have prefaced by question with the following: I know that Stephanie's message was about the IFR and Separation and I narrowed it to focus on the PTI Board. I did that because I was curious about your positions regarding geographic diversity with regard to the PTI Board. The same question could be asked with regard to the IFRT. And another question I have is this: Would your prioritization of the five items be the same for the IFRT as for the PTI Board? Chuck From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 5:13 AM To: 'Erick Iriarte'; Duchesneau, Stephanie Cc: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas Erick, I have a question for you. How would you rank the following in terms of importance for a PTI Board? * Geographic representation * Stakeholder representation * Skill set and expertise * Limited size of Board * Accountability to the overall community Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Erick Iriarte Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:35 AM To: Duchesneau, Stephanie Cc: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas Dear Stephanie Thanks for the information. In the special cases of ccTLDs. Now we have ccNSO members and ccNSO non members, we need to be clear in that. Diversity (by TLDs origin (gTLDs / ccTLDs) and by Region) is important for equilibrium in the composition of any board. Erick El 29/5/2015, a las 2:21, Duchesneau, Stephanie <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us<mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>> escribió: Hi All, In order to facilitate today's review of comments, DT-N has formulated a review of some of the major topics identified in the related public comments and an initial design team position (including identification of areas where further discussion is required. Our summary is below: * Composition: A large number of comments focused on the composition of the IFRT, though the "asks" varied widely. Some called for greater registry representation, some called for increased representation by Advisory Committees, others called for a balance between the GNSO/ccNSO participation. One comment called to remove the CSC liaison while another called for the entire CSC to participate and for 5 liaisons to be created. The structure proposed by the working group is an effort to balance between these different positions; we note that the structure was generally derived from the outcome of the intensive working weekend (then in the context of the MRT) that followed a survey of the working group on this topic. * Geographic Representation: Some comments called out for geographic balance in the representation of the IFRT. The DT supports this principle but notes that implementation is difficult for a group of this small size, particularly where experience is key. To these ends we recommend that a principle that, to the extent possible, groups appointing more than one representative strive to have representatives from different geographic regions. * Frequency: Some comments called for reviews to be carried out more frequently. We generally feel that a review carried out every year or every other year (as called for by the comments) would be too frequent. However, we are open to suggestions made that a recommendation for the frequency of the regular reviews could be deferred to completion of the first review. * Outcomes of IFR: Some comments called for the outcomes of the IFR to be explicitly stated. While we believe that these should not be prescribed, the creation of a SCWG is identified as one possible outcome. We would be open to creating an inventory of other possible outcomes but would not want this work to confine the Review Team. * Appointment of the ccTLD Members: One comment called for the non-ccNSO ccTLD representative to be appointed by the ccNSO. We believe that the ccNSO is in the best position to appoint this representative and to communicate with all ccTLD operators about the process. We support clarifying this in the draft comment. * Scope of IFRT: One comment requested clarification that this applies only to the Naming Functions. It is the intention that the IFRT will apply only to the Naming Functions. We will ensure that this is clarified in current drafts. * Details Around Separation Review: Several comments called for more detail to be inputted about the Separation Review. We note that significant work has been carried out since the Draft Proposal to further define the separation process/mechanism (the SCWG). These processes encompass some of the sub-recommendations with respect to separation (e.g. community consultation) * Role of the Board: Some comments expressed concern about the role of the Board in the processes of implementing IFRT Recommendations or in the Separation Process. We note that this role has been limited to Board approval, which we believe is requisite in both instances. To address related concerns, in the revised process details have been added that rejection of these recommendations would have to be handled by the board in accordance with the thresholds and procedures for rejecting the output of a PDP. * Home of IFRT: Some comments raised concerns about the possibility of the IFRT sitting inside PTI and/or supported by PTI. The intent of DT-N was to have the IFRT exist within ICANN and to be defined in the ICANN Bylaws. We will make this clearer in the current draft. We will also clarify that ICANN will provide secretariat and other support services for the IFRT. Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG). Sorry for sending this out on such short order. Hope this aids today's discussion. Best. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
First of all let me thank DT-N (is that Avri & Stephanie?) for doing this. I find it quite helpful. Below are my personal views regarding the DT-N review. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Duchesneau, Stephanie Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:22 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Cc: avri@acm.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas Hi All, In order to facilitate today's review of comments, DT-N has formulated a review of some of the major topics identified in the related public comments and an initial design team position (including identification of areas where further discussion is required. Our summary is below: * Composition: A large number of comments focused on the composition of the IFRT, though the "asks" varied widely. Some called for greater registry representation, some called for increased representation by Advisory Committees, others called for a balance between the GNSO/ccNSO participation. One comment called to remove the CSC liaison while another called for the entire CSC to participate and for 5 liaisons to be created. The structure proposed by the working group is an effort to balance between these different positions; we note that the structure was generally derived from the outcome of the intensive working weekend (then in the context of the MRT) that followed a survey of the working group on this topic. [Chuck Gomes] I think that the structure is fairly well balanced considering what I think is a need to limit the total size to a not too large and dysfunctional size. * Geographic Representation: Some comments called out for geographic balance in the representation of the IFRT. The DT supports this principle but notes that implementation is difficult for a group of this small size, particularly where experience is key. To these ends we recommend that a principle that, to the extent possible, groups appointing more than one representative strive to have representatives from different geographic regions. [Chuck Gomes] I believe this is a reasonable approach but it might be helpful to also encourage some cross-group collaboration before individual groups finalize their selections with the goal of increasing geographic diversity if possible. One way of doing this might be to ask groups to communicate their preliminary selections to one another as a whole, evaluate the overall geographic balance, and then explore whether any of the groups have any flexibility to adjust their selections to improve the total geographic representation without compromising on needed expertise and qualifications. * Frequency: Some comments called for reviews to be carried out more frequently. We generally feel that a review carried out every year or every other year (as called for by the comments) would be too frequent. However, we are open to suggestions made that a recommendation for the frequency of the regular reviews could be deferred to completion of the first review. [Chuck Gomes] 1) If an IFR requires at least nine months to be completed (including selection of IFRT members), then an annual review would mean that we are almost constantly reviewing with little or no time to evaluate the results of previous reviews. 2) I would like to think that the IANA service should be relatively stable as it has been in the past; if that is true, then conducting periodic reviews too frequently may be overkill. 3) The option for Special IFRs provides the opportunity for more frequent reviews if specific needs are identified. Therefore, I support the recommendation for an initial periodic review after two years and then every five years thereafter. * Outcomes of IFR: Some comments called for the outcomes of the IFR to be explicitly stated. While we believe that these should not be prescribed, the creation of a SCWG is identified as one possible outcome. We would be open to creating an inventory of other possible outcomes but would not want this work to confine the Review Team. [Chuck Gomes] Providing as much clarify as possible in terms of what is to be reviewed would be helpful but, if we want objective reviews to occur, I don't see how we could explicitly predefine outcomes and I suspect that this is not what commenters were suggesting. Providing general guidance for periodic reviews and more specific guidance for Special reviews will be very helpful but I think there should be enough flexibility to review unanticipated issues. * Appointment of the ccTLD Members: One comment called for the non-ccNSO ccTLD representative to be appointed by the ccNSO. We believe that the ccNSO is in the best position to appoint this representative and to communicate with all ccTLD operators about the process. We support clarifying this in the draft comment. [Chuck Gomes] I believe it is a good idea to use existing ICANN structures so as to avoid having to create new structures but there needs to be accommodation for those who are not part of ICANN structures so additional clarification of this make sense. It might be best of ccTLD registries develop ways of doing this that are acceptable to them. The same would apply for gTLD registries to the extent that this issue may apply to them. * Scope of IFRT: One comment requested clarification that this applies only to the Naming Functions. It is the intention that the IFRT will apply only to the Naming Functions. We will ensure that this is clarified in current drafts. * Details Around Separation Review: Several comments called for more detail to be inputted about the Separation Review. We note that significant work has been carried out since the Draft Proposal to further define the separation process/mechanism (the SCWG). These processes encompass some of the sub-recommendations with respect to separation (e.g. community consultation) * Role of the Board: Some comments expressed concern about the role of the Board in the processes of implementing IFRT Recommendations or in the Separation Process. We note that this role has been limited to Board approval, which we believe is requisite in both instances. To address related concerns, in the revised process details have been added that rejection of these recommendations would have to be handled by the board in accordance with the thresholds and procedures for rejecting the output of a PDP. * Home of IFRT: Some comments raised concerns about the possibility of the IFRT sitting inside PTI and/or supported by PTI. The intent of DT-N was to have the IFRT exist within ICANN and to be defined in the ICANN Bylaws. We will make this clearer in the current draft. We will also clarify that ICANN will provide secretariat and other support services for the IFRT. [Chuck Gomes] I agree with DT-N on this because the accountability mechanisms will be for ICANN. Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG). [Chuck Gomes] I am biased toward the RySG recommendation in this regard, i.e., that a sufficient portion of registry fees be designated for IANA services and that those fees be used to support the IANA function operator regardless of who the IFO is. Sorry for sending this out on such short order. Hope this aids today's discussion. Best. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
I find the statement about "Separation Costs" below to be very strange. If there is a separation process and it results in separation, PTI is "fired" and no one covers its expenses. It goes out of business. ICANN contracts with someone else. For that reason, I agree in principle with RySG concept of earmarked or set-side funds for the IFO regardless of who it is. Stephanie, is there something about this statement I did not understand correctly? Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG).
I am not Stephanie as you know, but I think you got it right Milton. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 10:08 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Duchesneau, Stephanie; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Cc: avri@acm.org Subject: RE: Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas I find the statement about "Separation Costs" below to be very strange. If there is a separation process and it results in separation, PTI is "fired" and no one covers its expenses. It goes out of business. ICANN contracts with someone else. For that reason, I agree in principle with RySG concept of earmarked or set-side funds for the IFO regardless of who it is. Stephanie, is there something about this statement I did not understand correctly? Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG).
Hi Milton, I agree with the RySG approach too of earmarking fees regardless of who the IFO is. The DT-N comment simply was that this matter needs to be handled within the CWG’s work, without speaking to how. I am not sure that DT-N/X/SR is the right place which is why I deferred to the CWG or potentially a different DT in the comment. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Friday, May 29, 2015 at 10:15 AM To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>>, "Duchesneau, Stephanie" <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us<mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Cc: "avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>" <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Subject: RE: Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas I am not Stephanie as you know, but I think you got it right Milton. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 10:08 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Duchesneau, Stephanie; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Cc: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> Subject: RE: Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas I find the statement about “Separation Costs” below to be very strange. If there is a separation process and it results in separation, PTI is “fired” and no one covers its expenses. It goes out of business. ICANN contracts with someone else. For that reason, I agree in principle with RySG concept of earmarked or set-side funds for the IFO regardless of who it is. Stephanie, is there something about this statement I did not understand correctly? Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG).
hi, i disagree with the idea of earmarking Registry funds as was suggested. I agree that ICANN has to continue to provide funds for the transition and for the new IFO, and that this needs to be plain in the ICANN budget. But to get into telling ICANN, as part of this exercise, how if should allocate the fund within the ICANN budget, is out of scope for this process as far as I can tell. All that should matter is that ICANN continues to support the IFO, and not that it should do so by earmarking registry fees. avri On 29-May-15 10:28, Duchesneau, Stephanie wrote:
Hi Milton,
I agree with the RySG approach too of earmarking fees regardless of who the IFO is.
The DT-N comment simply was that this matter needs to be handled within the CWG’s work, without speaking to how. I am not sure that DT-N/X/SR is the right place which is why I deferred to the CWG or potentially a different DT in the comment.
Stephanie
*Stephanie Duchesneau** * *Neustar, Inc. / *Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4^th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 *Office:** *+1.202.533.2623 *Mobile: *+1.703.731.2040 *Fax: *+1.202.533.2623 */* www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>
From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Friday, May 29, 2015 at 10:15 AM To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu <mailto:mueller@syr.edu>>, "Duchesneau, Stephanie" <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us <mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Cc: "avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>" <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> Subject: RE: Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas
I am not Stephanie as you know, but I think you got it right Milton.
Chuck
*From:*Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2015 10:08 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Duchesneau, Stephanie; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Cc:* avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> *Subject:* RE: Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas
I find the statement about “Separation Costs” below to be very strange. If there is a separation process and it results in separation, PTI is “fired” and no one covers its expenses. It goes out of business. ICANN contracts with someone else. For that reason, I agree in principle with RySG concept of earmarked or set-side funds for the IFO regardless of who it is. Stephanie, is there something about this statement I did not understand correctly?
*Separation Costs: *Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG).
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
While I do not agree that it would be out of scope, let me put that aside and ask you a question Avri: How would you propose addressing the registry concern about the possibility of registry fees (which of course would likely be paid by registrars and ultimately registrants) be raised to cover IANA costs that are presently paid mostly via registry/registrar/registrant fees? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 12:37 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas hi, i disagree with the idea of earmarking Registry funds as was suggested. I agree that ICANN has to continue to provide funds for the transition and for the new IFO, and that this needs to be plain in the ICANN budget. But to get into telling ICANN, as part of this exercise, how if should allocate the fund within the ICANN budget, is out of scope for this process as far as I can tell. All that should matter is that ICANN continues to support the IFO, and not that it should do so by earmarking registry fees. avri On 29-May-15 10:28, Duchesneau, Stephanie wrote:
Hi Milton,
I agree with the RySG approach too of earmarking fees regardless of who the IFO is.
The DT-N comment simply was that this matter needs to be handled within the CWG's work, without speaking to how. I am not sure that DT-N/X/SR is the right place which is why I deferred to the CWG or potentially a different DT in the comment.
Stephanie
*Stephanie Duchesneau** * *Neustar, Inc. / *Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4^th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 *Office:** *+1.202.533.2623 *Mobile: *+1.703.731.2040 *Fax: *+1.202.533.2623 */* www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>
From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Friday, May 29, 2015 at 10:15 AM To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu <mailto:mueller@syr.edu>>, "Duchesneau, Stephanie" <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us <mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Cc: "avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>" <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> Subject: RE: Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas
I am not Stephanie as you know, but I think you got it right Milton.
Chuck
*From:*Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2015 10:08 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Duchesneau, Stephanie; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Cc:* avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> *Subject:* RE: Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas
I find the statement about "Separation Costs" below to be very strange. If there is a separation process and it results in separation, PTI is "fired" and no one covers its expenses. It goes out of business. ICANN contracts with someone else. For that reason, I agree in principle with RySG concept of earmarked or set-side funds for the IFO regardless of who it is. Stephanie, is there something about this statement I did not understand correctly?
*Separation Costs: *Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG).
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi, On 29-May-15 12:43, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
While I do not agree that it would be out of scope, let me put that aside and ask you a question Avri: How would you propose addressing the registry concern about the possibility of registry fees (which of course would likely be paid by registrars and ultimately registrants) be raised to cover IANA costs that are presently paid mostly via registry/registrar/registrant fees?
As part of the ICANN Budget cycle process? Not a process I take part in, but one that I assume deals with issues such as how ICANN income and outgo are allocated. Seems like a really good exercise that I would watch with interest. I just do not see this topic as part of the IANA Stewardship Transition process, which should be satisfied with a commitment that ICANN will pay IANA's way as needed and negotiated through transitions and beyond. It is the price of ICANN holding stewardship. As between parent and ward. The CCWG is working on the mechanisms needed to deal with ICANN budget issues going forward, these ICANN budget allocation issues do not need to lumped in with the transition itself. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
My fear is that if the issue of registry fees is not dealt with as part of the transition, the risk of fees being raised after transition will be much higher. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 7:11 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ... Hi, On 29-May-15 12:43, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
While I do not agree that it would be out of scope, let me put that aside and ask you a question Avri: How would you propose addressing the registry concern about the possibility of registry fees (which of course would likely be paid by registrars and ultimately registrants) be raised to cover IANA costs that are presently paid mostly via registry/registrar/registrant fees?
As part of the ICANN Budget cycle process? Not a process I take part in, but one that I assume deals with issues such as how ICANN income and outgo are allocated. Seems like a really good exercise that I would watch with interest. I just do not see this topic as part of the IANA Stewardship Transition process, which should be satisfied with a commitment that ICANN will pay IANA's way as needed and negotiated through transitions and beyond. It is the price of ICANN holding stewardship. As between parent and ward. The CCWG is working on the mechanisms needed to deal with ICANN budget issues going forward, these ICANN budget allocation issues do not need to lumped in with the transition itself. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I'm not sure that I like the idea that financial accountability is simply at the spend side, Avri. Bearing in mind that the IANA function is a major part of the value that ICANN provides to the ccTLD community, the recent framework for ccTLD voluntary contributions to the ICANN budget takes this into account. This clarity has long been seen as an important element in calculating contributions. While to some extent this is particularly important for ccTLDs because we develop our policy locally, have our own networks of registrars and our own multi-stakeholder engagement programmes (as well as our own engagement in international Internet governance), the principle is an important one for the delivery of a key service. Bundling - "to get a vital service that only we provide, you must also buy all these things" - is not good practice. However, it becomes particularly important if we end with a new IANA functions operator following an RfP. Some ccTLDs might want to contract directly with the new operator, others will want to know that the ICANN request for increased funding is justified. But purely on the good practice side, when we go into separation, I think those who pay the piper have a reasonable right to know how much they'll have to pay the new piper. This does not give me any comfortable feelings about the separation CWG. Price/quality has to be a factor in selecting a new operator (it is one of my objections to increasing SLEs without justification - it is about delivering the necessary levels of service), as well as criteria on independence and competence and skills sets in the new contractor. It also needs to be taken into account in preparing the RfP. The direct customers will be only too aware of the implications. I would hope that the other team members will also want to take these concerns into account. Martin -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: 29 May 2015 17:37 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas hi, i disagree with the idea of earmarking Registry funds as was suggested. I agree that ICANN has to continue to provide funds for the transition and for the new IFO, and that this needs to be plain in the ICANN budget. But to get into telling ICANN, as part of this exercise, how if should allocate the fund within the ICANN budget, is out of scope for this process as far as I can tell. All that should matter is that ICANN continues to support the IFO, and not that it should do so by earmarking registry fees. avri On 29-May-15 10:28, Duchesneau, Stephanie wrote:
Hi Milton,
I agree with the RySG approach too of earmarking fees regardless of who the IFO is.
The DT-N comment simply was that this matter needs to be handled within the CWG's work, without speaking to how. I am not sure that DT-N/X/SR is the right place which is why I deferred to the CWG or potentially a different DT in the comment.
Stephanie
*Stephanie Duchesneau** * *Neustar, Inc. / *Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4^th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 *Office:** *+1.202.533.2623 *Mobile: *+1.703.731.2040 *Fax: *+1.202.533.2623 */* www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>
From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Friday, May 29, 2015 at 10:15 AM To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu <mailto:mueller@syr.edu>>, "Duchesneau, Stephanie" <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us <mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Cc: "avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>" <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> Subject: RE: Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas
I am not Stephanie as you know, but I think you got it right Milton.
Chuck
*From:*Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2015 10:08 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Duchesneau, Stephanie; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Cc:* avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> *Subject:* RE: Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas
I find the statement about "Separation Costs" below to be very strange. If there is a separation process and it results in separation, PTI is "fired" and no one covers its expenses. It goes out of business. ICANN contracts with someone else. For that reason, I agree in principle with RySG concept of earmarked or set-side funds for the IFO regardless of who it is. Stephanie, is there something about this statement I did not understand correctly?
*Separation Costs: *Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG).
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
For reference on today’s call please find the most recent drafts related to the separation process (overview and punch list). This has merged inputs from Sidley as well as subsequent edits that were made by the DT before these inputs were received. As most changes since the Sidley version have been clarifications the inputs were compatible. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> From: <Duchesneau>, Stephanie <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us<mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>> Date: Friday, May 29, 2015 at 3:21 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Cc: "avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>" <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas Hi All, In order to facilitate today’s review of comments, DT-N has formulated a review of some of the major topics identified in the related public comments and an initial design team position (including identification of areas where further discussion is required. Our summary is below: * Composition: A large number of comments focused on the composition of the IFRT, though the “asks” varied widely. Some called for greater registry representation, some called for increased representation by Advisory Committees, others called for a balance between the GNSO/ccNSO participation. One comment called to remove the CSC liaison while another called for the entire CSC to participate and for 5 liaisons to be created. The structure proposed by the working group is an effort to balance between these different positions; we note that the structure was generally derived from the outcome of the intensive working weekend (then in the context of the MRT) that followed a survey of the working group on this topic. * Geographic Representation: Some comments called out for geographic balance in the representation of the IFRT. The DT supports this principle but notes that implementation is difficult for a group of this small size, particularly where experience is key. To these ends we recommend that a principle that, to the extent possible, groups appointing more than one representative strive to have representatives from different geographic regions. * Frequency: Some comments called for reviews to be carried out more frequently. We generally feel that a review carried out every year or every other year (as called for by the comments) would be too frequent. However, we are open to suggestions made that a recommendation for the frequency of the regular reviews could be deferred to completion of the first review. * Outcomes of IFR: Some comments called for the outcomes of the IFR to be explicitly stated. While we believe that these should not be prescribed, the creation of a SCWG is identified as one possible outcome. We would be open to creating an inventory of other possible outcomes but would not want this work to confine the Review Team. * Appointment of the ccTLD Members: One comment called for the non-ccNSO ccTLD representative to be appointed by the ccNSO. We believe that the ccNSO is in the best position to appoint this representative and to communicate with all ccTLD operators about the process. We support clarifying this in the draft comment. * Scope of IFRT: One comment requested clarification that this applies only to the Naming Functions. It is the intention that the IFRT will apply only to the Naming Functions. We will ensure that this is clarified in current drafts. * Details Around Separation Review: Several comments called for more detail to be inputted about the Separation Review. We note that significant work has been carried out since the Draft Proposal to further define the separation process/mechanism (the SCWG). These processes encompass some of the sub-recommendations with respect to separation (e.g. community consultation) * Role of the Board: Some comments expressed concern about the role of the Board in the processes of implementing IFRT Recommendations or in the Separation Process. We note that this role has been limited to Board approval, which we believe is requisite in both instances. To address related concerns, in the revised process details have been added that rejection of these recommendations would have to be handled by the board in accordance with the thresholds and procedures for rejecting the output of a PDP. * Home of IFRT: Some comments raised concerns about the possibility of the IFRT sitting inside PTI and/or supported by PTI. The intent of DT-N was to have the IFRT exist within ICANN and to be defined in the ICANN Bylaws. We will make this clearer in the current draft. We will also clarify that ICANN will provide secretariat and other support services for the IFRT. Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG). Sorry for sending this out on such short order. Hope this aids today’s discussion. Best. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
Hello Stephanie, Thanks for this summary, kindly find a few comments inset On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Duchesneau, Stephanie < Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us> wrote:
-
Frequency: Some comments called for reviews to be carried out more frequently. We generally feel that a review carried out every year or every other year (as called for by the comments) would be too frequent. However, we are open to suggestions made that a recommendation for the frequency of the regular reviews could be deferred to completion of the first review.
It think review frequency should go inline with the contract term, which i understand to be 2 years initial and 5years subsequently (ofcourse starting the review process few month before contract expiry needs to be defined and i think between 3 and 6months may be ideal considering how long the process could be).
- -
Outcomes of IFR: Some comments called for the outcomes of the IFR to be explicitly stated. While we believe that these should not be prescribed, the creation of a SCWG is identified as one possible outcome. We would be open to creating an inventory of other possible outcomes but would not want this work to confine the Review Team.
If i get the above correctly; there won't be SCWG unless its triggered by IFRT as a result of the periodic review. I agree with that being one of the outcome of IFRT.
-
-
Appointment of the ccTLD Members: One comment called for the non-ccNSO ccTLD representative to be appointed by the ccNSO. We believe that the ccNSO is in the best position to appoint this representative and to communicate with all ccTLD operators about the process. We support clarifying this in the draft comment.
+1 on this
-
-
Scope of IFRT: One comment requested clarification that this applies only to the Naming Functions. It is the intention that the IFRT will apply only to the Naming Functions. We will ensure that this is clarified in current drafts.
++1 on this as well
- -
Details Around Separation Review: Several comments called for more detail to be inputted about the Separation Review. We note that significant work has been carried out since the Draft Proposal to further define the separation process/mechanism (the SCWG). These processes encompass some of the sub-recommendations with respect to separation (e.g. community consultation)
I particularly agree with the idea of ensuring members of SCWG are drawn from the community with the same composition of IFRT but not composed of any member of IFRT.
- - -
Home of IFRT: Some comments raised concerns about the possibility of the IFRT sitting inside PTI and/or supported by PTI. The intent of DT-N was to have the IFRT exist within ICANN and to be defined in the ICANN Bylaws. We will make this clearer in the current draft. We will also clarify that ICANN will provide secretariat and other support services for the IFRT.
+1 on the home of IFRT as well. That said, i think it needs to be clear that IFRT is NOT going to be standing. While the members can be elected and known, they should ONLY be active when there is either a trigger as a result of CSC's escalation process OR the periodic review. So i won't expect IFRT to be conducting monthly meetings for instance, neither will i expect them to be making any enquiries about PTI performance unless its in the review period(or in a triggered phase). It may also be good to consider rotating IFRT members by review period. Regards
Stephanie
*Stephanie Duchesneau* *Neustar, Inc. / *Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 *Office:* +1.202.533.2623 *Mobile: *+1.703.731.2040 *Fax: * +1.202.533.2623 */* www.neustar.biz
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
participants (11)
-
Avri Doria -
Baudouin SCHOMBE -
CW Lists -
Duchesneau, Stephanie -
Erick Iriarte -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
Marika Konings -
Martin Boyle -
Milton L Mueller -
Seun Ojedeji