update on DT X Separation Process
Hi, I did an update on the file. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrET...> and attached a pdf version to this note. * Received some comments which I tried to include * Responded to Sibley comments, I think * Largely separated the process from who does it * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include: o who dies it: + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR would be designated] o how it is initiated: + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in the case of Board rejection via escalation procedure. + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs o method of operation + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to be made by CWG) # A process initiated in the IFR # Function as a Cross Community Working Group and would follow established guidelines for multistakeholder cross community working groups. In this case the participants would be either (decision to be made by CWG): 1. Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the Separation Review. 2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and proportions to include the broader community as this will affect the entire community. Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's meeting so will miss the middle hour, but I do think this is something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near future. avri o --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Hi Avri I understand this is a work in progress and apologies if my questions are still being worked through. In all possible separation review outcomes, would ICANN would still be the 'contractor' for the IANA service? If not, who would be? What is meant by "initiate partial separations, i.e. initiate negotiations with new operational partners". I'm not sure I understand what a partial separation is, and who would initiate negotiations? Is this perhaps a subset of "create an RFP" or vice versa? I'm also not clear what is meant by "initiate full separation of the IANA affiliate" . Is this separation of the IANA affiliate from ICANN to continue to perform the IANA function, or is it separation of the IANA affiliate from ICANN in favour of another provider to be selected through an RFP? If it is the former, who would the IANA affiliate be accountable to, ie who would replace ICANN as the contractor? If it is the latter, what would happen to the IANA affiliate? Would it be dissolved in some way? Thanks Donna -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, 11 May 2015 3:19 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process Hi, I did an update on the file. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrET...> and attached a pdf version to this note. * Received some comments which I tried to include * Responded to Sibley comments, I think * Largely separated the process from who does it * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include: o who dies it: + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR would be designated] o how it is initiated: + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in the case of Board rejection via escalation procedure. + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs o method of operation + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to be made by CWG) # A process initiated in the IFR # Function as a Cross Community Working Group and would follow established guidelines for multistakeholder cross community working groups. In this case the participants would be either (decision to be made by CWG): 1. Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the Separation Review. 2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and proportions to include the broader community as this will affect the entire community. Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's meeting so will miss the middle hour, but I do think this is something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near future. avri o --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Hi, On 12-May-15 23:52, Donna Austin wrote:
Hi Avri
I understand this is a work in progress and apologies if my questions are still being worked through.
They are, but they all need discussion and this is the place for that discussion as I understand it.
In all possible separation review outcomes, would ICANN would still be the 'contractor' for the IANA service? If not, who would be?
I think so. Have not heard anyone suggest otherwise. At least for Names that is.
What is meant by "initiate partial separations, i.e. initiate negotiations with new operational partners". I'm not sure I understand what a partial separation is, and who would initiate negotiations? Is this perhaps a subset of "create an RFP" or vice versa?
Partial was probably bad usage. What I meant when I first wrote it (i think it was me) was a change from ICANN as sole owneer of the affiliate to a possible scenario where one or both of the other operational partners would be brought into co-ownership. Personally i still thnik that the strongest accountability for the PTI is joint ownership with the the Protocl and Numbers operational communities. I know that is not something we can recommend, but I would argue for allowing it among the universe of possible outcomes of a further separation process.
I'm also not clear what is meant by "initiate full separation of the IANA affiliate" . Is this separation of the IANA affiliate from ICANN to continue to perform the IANA function, or is it separation of the IANA affiliate from ICANN in favour of another provider to be selected through an RFP?
One possibility is that IANA could become a free standing entity, could be spun out as it were. Trying to not predetermine this one way or another. Again insufficient wording. What this list is trying to do is show various, inter alia, possibilities that a separation review could decide on.
If it is the former, who would the IANA affiliate be accountable to, ie who would replace ICANN as the contractor?
That would need to be determined at that time. Recalling that this only happens in the case of serious precipitating event. This is one reason why I personally believe it takes something another ICG like group to undergo this process and not just another activity for the IFR. Any further change in separation should be constrained by the same sense of sense of general global agreement and the same requirements for guaranteeing accountability. The Separation process is similar to a repeated transition process.
If it is the latter, what would happen to the IANA affiliate? Would it be dissolved in some way?
If ICANN decides to hire an outside group through RFP to do the IANA function, then like any no longer used subsidiary, it might cease to exist. Of course, while not presupposing outcomes of such a process, we could also find that names decides to do an RFP , to another but that Protocols and Numbers are happy as ICANN customers and stay with the then status quo. thanks and apologies for the lack of clarity in the recommendation. avri
Thanks
Donna
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, 11 May 2015 3:19 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
Hi,
I did an update on the file. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrET...> and attached a pdf version to this note.
* Received some comments which I tried to include * Responded to Sibley comments, I think * Largely separated the process from who does it * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include: o who dies it: + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR would be designated] o how it is initiated: + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in the case of Board rejection via escalation procedure. + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs o method of operation + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to be made by CWG) #
A process initiated in the IFR
#
Function as a Cross Community Working Group and would follow established guidelines for multistakeholder cross community working groups. In this case the participants would be either (decision to be made by CWG):
1.
Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the Separation Review.
2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and proportions to include the broader community as this will affect the entire community.
Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's meeting so will miss the middle hour, but I do think this is something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near future.
avri
o
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Avri, Why would the recommendations of this review need to be approved by the ICANN board? The fifth possible separation mechanism is " Initiate full separation of the IANA affiliate". Does this mean separation of PTI from ICANN? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:19 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process Hi, I did an update on the file. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrET...> and attached a pdf version to this note. * Received some comments which I tried to include * Responded to Sibley comments, I think * Largely separated the process from who does it * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include: o who dies it: + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR would be designated] o how it is initiated: + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in the case of Board rejection via escalation procedure. + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs o method of operation + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to be made by CWG) # A process initiated in the IFR # Function as a Cross Community Working Group and would follow established guidelines for multistakeholder cross community working groups. In this case the participants would be either (decision to be made by CWG): 1. Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the Separation Review. 2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and proportions to include the broader community as this will affect the entire community. Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's meeting so will miss the middle hour, but I do think this is something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near future. avri o --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
hi, On 14-May-15 23:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri,
Why would the recommendations of this review need to be approved by the ICANN board?
That is one of the questions asked? Most reviews are approved by the Board before they have further action. Isn't it part of the check and balances. And if they don't agree isn't that why we have the various redress mechanisms?
The fifth possible separation mechanism is " Initiate full separation of the IANA affiliate". Does this mean separation of PTI from ICANN?
Yes. one of the option in the various models we discussed was an independent free standing PTI depending on the circumstances, this might an option those responsible at the time might want to consider. As I said in the meeting today, I think the point is avoid presaging the type of decision they might need to take. avri
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:19 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
Hi,
I did an update on the file. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrET...> and attached a pdf version to this note.
* Received some comments which I tried to include * Responded to Sibley comments, I think * Largely separated the process from who does it * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include: o who dies it: + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR would be designated] o how it is initiated: + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in the case of Board rejection via escalation procedure. + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs o method of operation + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to be made by CWG) #
A process initiated in the IFR
#
Function as a Cross Community Working Group and would follow established guidelines for multistakeholder cross community working groups. In this case the participants would be either (decision to be made by CWG):
1.
Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the Separation Review.
2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and proportions to include the broader community as this will affect the entire community.
Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's meeting so will miss the middle hour, but I do think this is something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near future.
avri
o
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Avri: The fifth separation mechanism is basically the creation of a Contract CO. Is this correct? -ed On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
hi,
On 14-May-15 23:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri,
Why would the recommendations of this review need to be approved by the ICANN board?
That is one of the questions asked? Most reviews are approved by the Board before they have further action. Isn't it part of the check and balances. And if they don't agree isn't that why we have the various redress mechanisms?
The fifth possible separation mechanism is " Initiate full separation of
the IANA affiliate". Does this mean separation of PTI from ICANN?
Yes. one of the option in the various models we discussed was an independent free standing PTI depending on the circumstances, this might an option those responsible at the time might want to consider. As I said in the meeting today, I think the point is avoid presaging the type of decision they might need to take.
avri
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:19 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
Hi,
I did an update on the file. < https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrET...
and attached a pdf version to this note.
* Received some comments which I tried to include * Responded to Sibley comments, I think * Largely separated the process from who does it * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include: o who dies it: + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR would be designated] o how it is initiated: + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in the case of Board rejection via escalation procedure. + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs o method of operation + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to be made by CWG) #
A process initiated in the IFR
#
Function as a Cross Community Working Group and would follow established guidelines for multistakeholder cross community working groups. In this case the participants would be either (decision to be made by CWG):
1.
Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the Separation Review.
2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and proportions to include the broader community as this will affect the entire community.
Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's meeting so will miss the middle hour, but I do think this is something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near future.
avri
o
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
--- 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
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
Eduardo Strictly speaking I don’t think it is, but there is a question of who PTI would be accountable to if it was set free from ICANN and continued to perform the IANA function. In considering the accountability question we could end up back at Contract Co. discussion, which at the end of the day was unacceptable to most. Donna From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Eduardo Diaz Sent: Thursday, 14 May 2015 4:35 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process Avri: The fifth separation mechanism is basically the creation of a Contract CO. Is this correct? -ed On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: hi, On 14-May-15 23:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri,
Why would the recommendations of this review need to be approved by the ICANN board?
That is one of the questions asked? Most reviews are approved by the Board before they have further action. Isn't it part of the check and balances. And if they don't agree isn't that why we have the various redress mechanisms?
The fifth possible separation mechanism is " Initiate full separation of the IANA affiliate". Does this mean separation of PTI from ICANN?
Yes. one of the option in the various models we discussed was an independent free standing PTI depending on the circumstances, this might an option those responsible at the time might want to consider. As I said in the meeting today, I think the point is avoid presaging the type of decision they might need to take. avri
Chuck
-----Original Message----- 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 Avri Doria Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:19 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
Hi,
I did an update on the file. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrET...> and attached a pdf version to this note.
* Received some comments which I tried to include * Responded to Sibley comments, I think * Largely separated the process from who does it * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include: o who dies it: + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR would be designated] o how it is initiated: + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in the case of Board rejection via escalation procedure. + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs o method of operation + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to be made by CWG) #
A process initiated in the IFR
#
Function as a Cross Community Working Group and would follow established guidelines for multistakeholder cross community working groups. In this case the participants would be either (decision to be made by CWG):
1.
Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the Separation Review.
2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and proportions to include the broader community as this will affect the entire community.
Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's meeting so will miss the middle hour, but I do think this is something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near future.
avri
o
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- NOTICE: This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
Donna: So the question that comes to my mind is: shall we consider this separation option at all? -ed On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> wrote:
Eduardo
Strictly speaking I don’t think it is, but there is a question of who PTI would be accountable to if it was set free from ICANN and continued to perform the IANA function. In considering the accountability question we could end up back at Contract Co. discussion, which at the end of the day was unacceptable to most.
Donna
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Eduardo Diaz *Sent:* Thursday, 14 May 2015 4:35 PM *To:* Avri Doria *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
Avri:
The fifth separation mechanism is basically the creation of a Contract CO. Is this correct?
-ed
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
hi,
On 14-May-15 23:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri,
Why would the recommendations of this review need to be approved by the ICANN board?
That is one of the questions asked? Most reviews are approved by the Board before they have further action. Isn't it part of the check and balances. And if they don't agree isn't that why we have the various redress mechanisms?
The fifth possible separation mechanism is " Initiate full separation of
the IANA affiliate". Does this mean separation of PTI from ICANN?
Yes. one of the option in the various models we discussed was an independent free standing PTI depending on the circumstances, this might an option those responsible at the time might want to consider. As I said in the meeting today, I think the point is avoid presaging the type of decision they might need to take.
avri
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:19 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
Hi,
I did an update on the file. < https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrET...
and attached a pdf version to this note.
* Received some comments which I tried to include * Responded to Sibley comments, I think * Largely separated the process from who does it * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include: o who dies it: + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR would be designated] o how it is initiated: + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in the case of Board rejection via escalation procedure. + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs o method of operation + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to be made by CWG) #
A process initiated in the IFR
#
Function as a Cross Community Working Group and would follow established guidelines for multistakeholder cross community working groups. In this case the participants would be either (decision to be made by CWG):
1.
Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the Separation Review.
2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and proportions to include the broader community as this will affect the entire community.
Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's meeting so will miss the middle hour, but I do think this is something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near future.
avri
o
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
--- 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
--
*NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
This whole discussion seems misguided to me. A free-standing IANA is nothing unless it has a contract from the policy making entity (ICANN) to update the DNS root for it. It only has the authority to do what the policy authority contracts with it to do. To view a free-standing IANA as a “Contract Co” is to fundamentally misunderstand both Contract Co and PTI. Contract Co was the entity that was authorized to contract for the IANA functions – in other words, it occupied the role that ICANN now occupies in the CWG proposal. And PTI occupies the role of contractor. This is true whether PTI is a subsidiary, an affiliate, free standing or whatever. PTI is not anything like what Contract Co was; it is on the other end of the contract. To respond to Donna’s question about who PTI would be accountable to if it is was “set free of ICANN” the answer is stunningly obvious: it would be accountable to whoever contracted with it to perform the IANA functions. Which would, of course, still be ICANN. If ICANN did not contract with it and PTI was independent, then PTI would be nothing more than a small nonprofit corporation without a funding source. Let’s not forget this basic fact: PTI HAS NO REVENUE SOURCE other than what ICANN, or possibly also the RIRs and IETF, pay it to perform the IANA functions. I can’t help but be a bit disturbed to see such fundamental misunderstandings at this stage of the game. --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Donna Austin Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 8:03 PM To: Eduardo Diaz; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process Eduardo Strictly speaking I don’t think it is, but there is a question of who PTI would be accountable to if it was set free from ICANN and continued to perform the IANA function. In considering the accountability question we could end up back at Contract Co. discussion, which at the end of the day was unacceptable to most. Donna From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Eduardo Diaz Sent: Thursday, 14 May 2015 4:35 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process Avri: The fifth separation mechanism is basically the creation of a Contract CO. Is this correct? -ed On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: hi, On 14-May-15 23:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri,
Why would the recommendations of this review need to be approved by the ICANN board?
That is one of the questions asked? Most reviews are approved by the Board before they have further action. Isn't it part of the check and balances. And if they don't agree isn't that why we have the various redress mechanisms?
The fifth possible separation mechanism is " Initiate full separation of the IANA affiliate". Does this mean separation of PTI from ICANN?
Yes. one of the option in the various models we discussed was an independent free standing PTI depending on the circumstances, this might an option those responsible at the time might want to consider. As I said in the meeting today, I think the point is avoid presaging the type of decision they might need to take. avri
Chuck
-----Original Message----- 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 Avri Doria Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:19 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
Hi,
I did an update on the file. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrET...> and attached a pdf version to this note.
* Received some comments which I tried to include * Responded to Sibley comments, I think * Largely separated the process from who does it * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include: o who dies it: + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR would be designated] o how it is initiated: + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in the case of Board rejection via escalation procedure. + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs o method of operation + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to be made by CWG) #
A process initiated in the IFR
#
Function as a Cross Community Working Group and would follow established guidelines for multistakeholder cross community working groups. In this case the participants would be either (decision to be made by CWG):
1.
Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the Separation Review.
2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and proportions to include the broader community as this will affect the entire community.
Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's meeting so will miss the middle hour, but I do think this is something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near future.
avri
o
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- NOTICE: This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
Milton, Am I correct in concluding from your comments below that your definition of ‘separation’ would simply be separation of PTI from ICANN? Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 4:51 AM To: Donna Austin; Eduardo Diaz; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process This whole discussion seems misguided to me. A free-standing IANA is nothing unless it has a contract from the policy making entity (ICANN) to update the DNS root for it. It only has the authority to do what the policy authority contracts with it to do. To view a free-standing IANA as a “Contract Co” is to fundamentally misunderstand both Contract Co and PTI. Contract Co was the entity that was authorized to contract for the IANA functions – in other words, it occupied the role that ICANN now occupies in the CWG proposal. And PTI occupies the role of contractor. This is true whether PTI is a subsidiary, an affiliate, free standing or whatever. PTI is not anything like what Contract Co was; it is on the other end of the contract. To respond to Donna’s question about who PTI would be accountable to if it is was “set free of ICANN” the answer is stunningly obvious: it would be accountable to whoever contracted with it to perform the IANA functions. Which would, of course, still be ICANN. If ICANN did not contract with it and PTI was independent, then PTI would be nothing more than a small nonprofit corporation without a funding source. Let’s not forget this basic fact: PTI HAS NO REVENUE SOURCE other than what ICANN, or possibly also the RIRs and IETF, pay it to perform the IANA functions. I can’t help but be a bit disturbed to see such fundamental misunderstandings at this stage of the game. --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Donna Austin Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 8:03 PM To: Eduardo Diaz; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process Eduardo Strictly speaking I don’t think it is, but there is a question of who PTI would be accountable to if it was set free from ICANN and continued to perform the IANA function. In considering the accountability question we could end up back at Contract Co. discussion, which at the end of the day was unacceptable to most. Donna From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Eduardo Diaz Sent: Thursday, 14 May 2015 4:35 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process Avri: The fifth separation mechanism is basically the creation of a Contract CO. Is this correct? -ed On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: hi, On 14-May-15 23:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri,
Why would the recommendations of this review need to be approved by the ICANN board?
That is one of the questions asked? Most reviews are approved by the Board before they have further action. Isn't it part of the check and balances. And if they don't agree isn't that why we have the various redress mechanisms?
The fifth possible separation mechanism is " Initiate full separation of the IANA affiliate". Does this mean separation of PTI from ICANN?
Yes. one of the option in the various models we discussed was an independent free standing PTI depending on the circumstances, this might an option those responsible at the time might want to consider. As I said in the meeting today, I think the point is avoid presaging the type of decision they might need to take. avri
Chuck
-----Original Message----- 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 Avri Doria Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:19 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
Hi,
I did an update on the file. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrET...> and attached a pdf version to this note.
* Received some comments which I tried to include * Responded to Sibley comments, I think * Largely separated the process from who does it * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include: o who dies it: + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR would be designated] o how it is initiated: + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in the case of Board rejection via escalation procedure. + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs o method of operation + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to be made by CWG) #
A process initiated in the IFR
#
Function as a Cross Community Working Group and would follow established guidelines for multistakeholder cross community working groups. In this case the participants would be either (decision to be made by CWG):
1.
Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the Separation Review.
2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and proportions to include the broader community as this will affect the entire community.
Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's meeting so will miss the middle hour, but I do think this is something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near future.
avri
o
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- NOTICE: This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
Milton: Thank you for the clarification. The misunderstanding (at least in my case) is based on the fact that it does not make sense for ICANN to keep any relationship, in the context of the naming function, with an Independent PTI. After all, PTI becomes independent because something went wrong with the affiliate relationship to start with. In other words, is like you said, an independent PTI is just "nothing more than a small nonprofit corporation without a funding source". Most probably an Independent PTI will not exist except if the protocol and numbers want to keep their relationship with them. -ed
On May 15, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Milton,
Am I correct in concluding from your comments below that your definition of ‘separation’ would simply be separation of PTI from ICANN?
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 4:51 AM To: Donna Austin; Eduardo Diaz; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
This whole discussion seems misguided to me.
A free-standing IANA is nothing unless it has a contract from the policy making entity (ICANN) to update the DNS root for it. It only has the authority to do what the policy authority contracts with it to do.
To view a free-standing IANA as a “Contract Co” is to fundamentally misunderstand both Contract Co and PTI. Contract Co was the entity that was authorized to contract for the IANA functions – in other words, it occupied the role that ICANN now occupies in the CWG proposal. And PTI occupies the role of contractor. This is true whether PTI is a subsidiary, an affiliate, free standing or whatever. PTI is not anything like what Contract Co was; it is on the other end of the contract.
To respond to Donna’s question about who PTI would be accountable to if it is was “set free of ICANN” the answer is stunningly obvious: it would be accountable to whoever contracted with it to perform the IANA functions. Which would, of course, still be ICANN. If ICANN did not contract with it and PTI was independent, then PTI would be nothing more than a small nonprofit corporation without a funding source.
Let’s not forget this basic fact: PTI HAS NO REVENUE SOURCE other than what ICANN, or possibly also the RIRs and IETF, pay it to perform the IANA functions.
I can’t help but be a bit disturbed to see such fundamental misunderstandings at this stage of the game.
--MM
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Donna Austin Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 8:03 PM To: Eduardo Diaz; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
Eduardo
Strictly speaking I don’t think it is, but there is a question of who PTI would be accountable to if it was set free from ICANN and continued to perform the IANA function. In considering the accountability question we could end up back at Contract Co. discussion, which at the end of the day was unacceptable to most.
Donna From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Eduardo Diaz Sent: Thursday, 14 May 2015 4:35 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
Avri:
The fifth separation mechanism is basically the creation of a Contract CO. Is this correct?
-ed
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote: hi,
On 14-May-15 23:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri,
Why would the recommendations of this review need to be approved by the ICANN board?
That is one of the questions asked? Most reviews are approved by the Board before they have further action. Isn't it part of the check and balances. And if they don't agree isn't that why we have the various redress mechanisms?
The fifth possible separation mechanism is " Initiate full separation of the IANA affiliate". Does this mean separation of PTI from ICANN?
Yes. one of the option in the various models we discussed was an independent free standing PTI depending on the circumstances, this might an option those responsible at the time might want to consider. As I said in the meeting today, I think the point is avoid presaging the type of decision they might need to take.
avri
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:19 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
Hi,
I did an update on the file. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrET...> and attached a pdf version to this note.
* Received some comments which I tried to include * Responded to Sibley comments, I think * Largely separated the process from who does it * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include: o who dies it: + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR would be designated] o how it is initiated: + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in the case of Board rejection via escalation procedure. + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs o method of operation + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to be made by CWG) #
A process initiated in the IFR
#
Function as a Cross Community Working Group and would follow established guidelines for multistakeholder cross community working groups. In this case the participants would be either (decision to be made by CWG):
1.
Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the Separation Review.
2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and proportions to include the broader community as this will affect the entire community.
Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's meeting so will miss the middle hour, but I do think this is something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near future.
avri
o
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
--- 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
-- NOTICE: This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
My understanding is that "separation" changes who the IANA Function Operator is and possibly the specifics of how it is connected to ICANN. But ICANN remains the steward of the function. -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On May 14, 2015 7:35:12 PM EDT, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:
Avri:
The fifth separation mechanism is basically the creation of a Contract CO. Is this correct?
-ed
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
hi,
On 14-May-15 23:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri,
Why would the recommendations of this review need to be approved by the ICANN board?
That is one of the questions asked? Most reviews are approved by the Board before they have further action. Isn't it part of the check and balances. And if they don't agree isn't that why we have the various redress mechanisms?
The fifth possible separation mechanism is " Initiate full
separation of the IANA affiliate". Does this mean separation of PTI from ICANN?
Yes. one of the option in the various models we discussed was an independent free standing PTI depending on the circumstances, this might an option those responsible at the time might want to consider. As I said in the meeting today, I think the point is avoid presaging the type of decision they might need to take.
avri
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:19 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
Hi,
I did an update on the file. <
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrET...
and attached a pdf version to this note.
* Received some comments which I tried to include * Responded to Sibley comments, I think * Largely separated the process from who does it * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include: o who dies it: + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR would be designated] o how it is initiated: + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in the
case
of Board rejection via escalation procedure. + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs o method of operation + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to be
made
by CWG) #
A process initiated in the IFR
#
Function as a Cross Community Working Group and
would
follow established guidelines for multistakeholder
cross
community working groups. In this case the
participants
would be either (decision to be made by CWG):
1.
Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the Separation Review.
2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and proportions to include the broader community as
this
will affect the entire community.
Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's meeting
so will miss the middle hour, but I do think this is something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near future.
avri
o
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.
--- 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
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi, Alan. In your scenario: IFO for names moves to another entity with ICANN retaining "stewardship". Numbers and Protocol Parameters communities have options to consider (i.e., follow or don't follow). If they do not follow (and assuming they do not stay with ICANN either), ICANN's mission fundamentally changes and ICANN would become ICAN. Is this correct as a possible outcome of this separation? Rinalia On May 15, 2015 8:21 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
My understanding is that "separation" changes who the IANA Function Operator is and possibly the specifics of how it is connected to ICANN. But ICANN remains the steward of the function. -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On May 14, 2015 7:35:12 PM EDT, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:
Avri:
The fifth separation mechanism is basically the creation of a Contract CO. Is this correct?
-ed
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
hi,
On 14-May-15 23:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri,
Why would the recommendations of this review need to be approved by the ICANN board?
That is one of the questions asked? Most reviews are approved by the Board before they have further action. Isn't it part of the check and balances. And if they don't agree isn't that why we have the various redress mechanisms?
The fifth possible separation mechanism is " Initiate full separation
of the IANA affiliate". Does this mean separation of PTI from ICANN?
Yes. one of the option in the various models we discussed was an independent free standing PTI depending on the circumstances, this might an option those responsible at the time might want to consider. As I said in the meeting today, I think the point is avoid presaging the type of decision they might need to take.
avri
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:19 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
Hi,
I did an update on the file. < https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrET...
and attached a pdf version to this note.
* Received some comments which I tried to include * Responded to Sibley comments, I think * Largely separated the process from who does it * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include: o who dies it: + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR would be designated] o how it is initiated: + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in the case of Board rejection via escalation procedure. + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs o method of operation + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to be made by CWG) #
A process initiated in the IFR
#
Function as a Cross Community Working Group and would follow established guidelines for multistakeholder cross community working groups. In this case the participants would be either (decision to be made by CWG):
1.
Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the Separation Review.
2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and proportions to include the broader community as this will affect the entire community.
Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's meeting so will miss the middle hour, but I do think this is something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near future.
avri
o
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
--- 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
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
------------------------------
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
Hi, On 15-May-15 01:35, Eduardo Diaz wrote:
Avri:
The fifth separation mechanism is basically the creation of a Contract CO. Is this correct?
I do not think so. ICANN itself, with all the new accountabilty stuff is eqiuvalent of Contract Co. - IANA Stewardship organization. What the fifth option seems to me to be, is the creation of a free standing IANA company that is one has a contract with ICANN to do the services for Names. ICANN is still the one awarding the contract. Some have argued that having PTI owned by ICANN means that they will be manipulated by ICANN. Some do not trust that ICANN will keep an arm's length relationship with the PTI. If there came a day when complete separation were necessary for the well being and indepndnece of the IANA entity then one of the option might be to spin it out as an independent company. Scenario (_/*purely speculative*/_ but Jonathan asked for Scenarios): A one day, after Accountability WS2 , ICANN has developed a viable wistleblower policy, and a whistleblower comes along with conclusive evidence of how ICANN VPs are using their power over the PTI to make sure that family members are being given the best jobs with extraordinary salaries at PTI, they have forced out some of the senior PTI talent and are being protected from having to do any work. We further learn that others at ICANN have been engaged in a cover-up of this activity and engaged in a pattern of intimidation. As a result, other PTI employees are not only being paid less that the ICANN cronies, they are no longer able to get the work done properly. As a consequence, CSC has been complaining about a pattern of irresponsiblity especially in repsonding to customer complaints. The SR is initiated and after seeing evidence that convinces them this cannot be cured without complete separation, there is a decsion to set up the PTI as a fully separate entity that has a contractual relationship with ICANN but does not own the PTI. Improbable. but in the word of possible scenarios, not an unheard of possibility. S But the contract would still be between ICANN the Policy entity and IANA. avri
-ed
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
hi,
On 14-May-15 23:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > Avri, > > Why would the recommendations of this review need to be approved by the ICANN board?
That is one of the questions asked? Most reviews are approved by the Board before they have further action. Isn't it part of the check and balances. And if they don't agree isn't that why we have the various redress mechanisms?
> > The fifth possible separation mechanism is " Initiate full separation of the IANA affiliate". Does this mean separation of PTI from ICANN?
Yes. one of the option in the various models we discussed was an independent free standing PTI depending on the circumstances, this might an option those responsible at the time might want to consider. As I said in the meeting today, I think the point is avoid presaging the type of decision they might need to take.
avri
> > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > 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 Avri Doria > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:19 PM > To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process > > Hi, > > I did an update on the file. > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrET...> > and attached a pdf version to this note. > > * Received some comments which I tried to include > * Responded to Sibley comments, I think > * Largely separated the process from who does it > * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include: > o who dies it: > + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR > would be designated] > o how it is initiated: > + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as > approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in the case > of Board rejection via escalation procedure. > + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO > + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs > o method of operation > + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to be made > by CWG) > # > > A process initiated in the IFR > > # > > Function as a Cross Community Working Group and would > follow established guidelines for multistakeholder cross > community working groups. In this case the participants > would be either (decision to be made by CWG): > > 1. > > Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the > Separation Review. > > 2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and > proportions to include the broader community as this > will affect the entire community. > > > Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's meeting so will miss the middle hour, but I do think this is something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near future. > > avri > > o > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > http://www.avast.com
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
On the fifth separation mechanism, I really wonder why we might think it appropriate to separate the IANA affiliate. This is one of many reasons why I am concerned about getting the accountability structure right: clear and simple so it is always possible to know where to fix the system. If PTI is failing *and* ICANN as the "parent" is not able to sort it out, in what way is giving the PTI added freedom a solution? There are many things that might happen that could make it worthwhile to capture the PTI - including accumulation of cash or establishing a new regime for controlling the root. Allowing a severance mechanism would then support and complete this and remove the IANA functions operator from any of the established accountability mechanisms, wouldn't it? The fifth mechanism *might* have a use, but I'd like to know what we see these to be and clearly define this. It has to be the exception. MB -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: 15 May 2015 00:27 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process hi, On 14-May-15 23:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri,
Why would the recommendations of this review need to be approved by the ICANN board?
That is one of the questions asked? Most reviews are approved by the Board before they have further action. Isn't it part of the check and balances. And if they don't agree isn't that why we have the various redress mechanisms?
The fifth possible separation mechanism is " Initiate full separation of the IANA affiliate". Does this mean separation of PTI from ICANN?
Yes. one of the option in the various models we discussed was an independent free standing PTI depending on the circumstances, this might an option those responsible at the time might want to consider. As I said in the meeting today, I think the point is avoid presaging the type of decision they might need to take. avri
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:19 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
Hi,
I did an update on the file. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDt F_JLrETRqg/edit?usp=sharing> and attached a pdf version to this note.
* Received some comments which I tried to include * Responded to Sibley comments, I think * Largely separated the process from who does it * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include: o who dies it: + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR would be designated] o how it is initiated: + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in the case of Board rejection via escalation procedure. + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs o method of operation + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to be made by CWG) #
A process initiated in the IFR
#
Function as a Cross Community Working Group and would follow established guidelines for multistakeholder cross community working groups. In this case the participants would be either (decision to be made by CWG):
1.
Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the Separation Review.
2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and proportions to include the broader community as this will affect the entire community.
Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's meeting so will miss the middle hour, but I do think this is something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near future.
avri
o
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
--- 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, I guess I am arguing that we should not be deciding at this point what possible resolutions should be excluded that may be needed at some improbable day in the future. The list of 5 goes from no action to nuclear. For example, I am surprised that no one is arguing against the no action option. One could argue that if the SR is invoked, taking no action would be inappropriate. But I expect I could spin a scenario where that was appropriate. For example: Scenario: (again_/*total speculation*/_) The PTI board decides to implement a new IETF protocol that would cost the Registries a bunch of capital to implement. This would hurt profits for 2 quarters. A registry dominated CSC and initiation process decides that it wants to stop the PTI from implementing this protocol and invokes the SR. A full community SR panel, simlar to the CWG or the ICG, invstigates the issue and decides that the implementation of the new protocol is warranted and takes no action against the PTI. Very unlikely, I know. but possible nonetheless. In any case, it is a list of possibilities, and I believe option 5 relates to a possible scenario, one where the PTI is competent and trying to do its job, but the linkage to ICANN is too close, corrupting and better dissolved. avri On 15-May-15 10:00, Martin Boyle wrote:
On the fifth separation mechanism, I really wonder why we might think it appropriate to separate the IANA affiliate. This is one of many reasons why I am concerned about getting the accountability structure right: clear and simple so it is always possible to know where to fix the system.
If PTI is failing *and* ICANN as the "parent" is not able to sort it out, in what way is giving the PTI added freedom a solution?
There are many things that might happen that could make it worthwhile to capture the PTI - including accumulation of cash or establishing a new regime for controlling the root. Allowing a severance mechanism would then support and complete this and remove the IANA functions operator from any of the established accountability mechanisms, wouldn't it?
The fifth mechanism *might* have a use, but I'd like to know what we see these to be and clearly define this. It has to be the exception.
MB
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: 15 May 2015 00:27 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
hi,
On 14-May-15 23:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri,
Why would the recommendations of this review need to be approved by the ICANN board? That is one of the questions asked? Most reviews are approved by the Board before they have further action. Isn't it part of the check and balances. And if they don't agree isn't that why we have the various redress mechanisms?
The fifth possible separation mechanism is " Initiate full separation of the IANA affiliate". Does this mean separation of PTI from ICANN? Yes. one of the option in the various models we discussed was an independent free standing PTI depending on the circumstances, this might an option those responsible at the time might want to consider. As I said in the meeting today, I think the point is avoid presaging the type of decision they might need to take.
avri
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:19 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
Hi,
I did an update on the file. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDt F_JLrETRqg/edit?usp=sharing> and attached a pdf version to this note.
* Received some comments which I tried to include * Responded to Sibley comments, I think * Largely separated the process from who does it * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include: o who dies it: + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR would be designated] o how it is initiated: + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in the case of Board rejection via escalation procedure. + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs o method of operation + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to be made by CWG) #
A process initiated in the IFR
#
Function as a Cross Community Working Group and would follow established guidelines for multistakeholder cross community working groups. In this case the participants would be either (decision to be made by CWG):
1.
Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the Separation Review.
2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and proportions to include the broader community as this will affect the entire community.
Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's meeting so will miss the middle hour, but I do think this is something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near future.
avri
o
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
--- 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Martin,
There are many things that might happen that could make it worthwhile to capture the PTI - including accumulation of cash or establishing a new regime for controlling the root.
No. Neither is a credible threat scenario. The cash comes from ICANN, it is not spontaneously generated. And the legal aspects of a PBC shelter the corporation from being raided for money. If you are into money, there are a lot of things you can do that have a vastly bigger payoff than going after a PBC whose entire revenue stream is dependent on a contract with ICANN. Indeed, you'd probably target the ICANN regime itself not IANA. Hmm, there may already be people doing that....but never mind. As for a new regime for controlling the root, IANA edits the root zone in line with contractual obligations to ICANN. It does not directly modify the RZF, which is published by Verisign. And if a conspiracy were hatched to create an alternate root I can't think of a more laughable way to do it than to "take over" an entity whose only connection to the root is via a contract with the status quo policy authority; If that happens the status quo policy authority simply cancels the contract and/or sues the renegade PTI. Indeed, the only way a "taken over" IANA could have any authority over root zone policy would be if lots of people hated ICANN so much that they wanted to fire it rather than IANA. I would admit, however, that folks who believe that you get more accountability by creating more and more committees and bureaucratic review mechanisms have created a slow-responding system that may be too slow to respond to crises. The solution to that is to rely less on bureaucracy and more on contract, as some of us have been saying.
Another question is this: will the separation process be an ICANN process or a process outside of ICANN. If it is an ICANN process, it might follow that the Board would approve any recommendations. But if it is a community process outside of ICANN, that would not seem to be the case. A corollary question is "Why would the ICANN board approve a recommendation to separate PTI from ICANN?" Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 7:27 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process hi, On 14-May-15 23:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri,
Why would the recommendations of this review need to be approved by the ICANN board?
That is one of the questions asked? Most reviews are approved by the Board before they have further action. Isn't it part of the check and balances. And if they don't agree isn't that why we have the various redress mechanisms?
The fifth possible separation mechanism is " Initiate full separation of the IANA affiliate". Does this mean separation of PTI from ICANN?
Yes. one of the option in the various models we discussed was an independent free standing PTI depending on the circumstances, this might an option those responsible at the time might want to consider. As I said in the meeting today, I think the point is avoid presaging the type of decision they might need to take. avri
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:19 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
Hi,
I did an update on the file. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDt F_JLrETRqg/edit?usp=sharing> and attached a pdf version to this note.
* Received some comments which I tried to include * Responded to Sibley comments, I think * Largely separated the process from who does it * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include: o who dies it: + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR would be designated] o how it is initiated: + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in the case of Board rejection via escalation procedure. + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs o method of operation + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to be made by CWG) #
A process initiated in the IFR
#
Function as a Cross Community Working Group and would follow established guidelines for multistakeholder cross community working groups. In this case the participants would be either (decision to be made by CWG):
1.
Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the Separation Review.
2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and proportions to include the broader community as this will affect the entire community.
Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's meeting so will miss the middle hour, but I do think this is something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near future.
avri
o
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
--- 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 15-May-15 15:01, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Another question is this: will the separation process be an ICANN process or a process outside of ICANN. If it is an ICANN process, it might follow that the Board would approve any recommendations. But if it is a community process outside of ICANN, that would not seem to be the case. A corollary question is "Why would the ICANN board approve a recommendation to separate PTI from ICANN
I think that as a review process the Board is in the approval chain. As to why they would sign? Because the community recommended it, just as they sign off on the ATRT recommendations. And if they didn't then there are the accountability escalation mechanisms. As for whether an AR process would need Board signoff. Not sure, kind of depends on how it is set up and whether we have some sort of member's council. But since they are the ones that have to sign the contract post RFP or whatever, it seems sort of a moot question. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Avri, I assume then that you think the SR should be an process within ICANN rather than one outside ICANN. Is that correct? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 9:25 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process hi, On 15-May-15 15:01, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Another question is this: will the separation process be an ICANN process or a process outside of ICANN. If it is an ICANN process, it might follow that the Board would approve any recommendations. But if it is a community process outside of ICANN, that would not seem to be the case. A corollary question is "Why would the ICANN board approve a recommendation to separate PTI from ICANN
I think that as a review process the Board is in the approval chain. As to why they would sign? Because the community recommended it, just as they sign off on the ATRT recommendations. And if they didn't then there are the accountability escalation mechanisms. As for whether an AR process would need Board signoff. Not sure, kind of depends on how it is set up and whether we have some sort of member's council. But since they are the ones that have to sign the contract post RFP or whatever, it seems sort of a moot question. 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
participants (9)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Donna Austin -
Eduardo Diaz -
Eduardo Diaz, PE
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Martin Boyle -
Milton L Mueller -
Rinalia Abdul Rahim