I can't --MM

-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 5:02 PM To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments

Good catch Avri and good question. Can anyone think of a reason why the ICANN Board should not be able to request an SIFR?

Chuck

-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:39 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments

Hi,

I am part of DT-M and partly responsible for this.

But. It has a cost, which I did mention on the DT-M list:

There is currently no mechanism defined for the Board to initiate a SIFR.

Should there be?

avri

On 04-Jun-15 16:10, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

...

Here is DT-M's final proposed response to comment review tool item # 246 regarding AFRALO's suggestion that the PTI Board be allowed to initiate a SIFR directly: *"DT M carefully considered the recommendation to allow the PTI Board to initiate a Special IFR but decided against that while at the same time noting that the PTI Board could request that the ICANN Board consider doing so."*

If there are any questions, please let me know.

Chuck

"This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately."

_______________________________________________ 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ 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

I struggle to imagine why the ICANN Board (any more than the PTI Board) would want to initiate an SIFR, in particular without the support of the community. Worse, I would feel that there would be a “cunning plan” somewhere behind such a decision and that leaves me seriously questioning why we would want this process to be triggered in such a way. No support for an SIFR, no overriding ICANN (or PTI) Board to ignore interests of the community. If someone can see possible reasons, I’d like to hear them. Then any trigger route could be defined (and limited) more carefully. Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears Sent: 05 June 2015 06:17 To: Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments But what would the thresholds be? And, currently an SIFR comes as a result of other mechanisms being exhausted as well as the IANA probems resolution process. The Special IFR would be triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. Would we require a supermajority of only the Board, or in addition to the ccNSO and GNSO. And as a result of the mechanisms being exhausted? I would assume so. Matthew On 6/5/2015 4:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: I can't --MM -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org<mailto:bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 5:02 PM To: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments Good catch Avri and good question. Can anyone think of a reason why the ICANN Board should not be able to request an SIFR? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org<mailto:bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:39 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments Hi, I am part of DT-M and partly responsible for this. But. It has a cost, which I did mention on the DT-M list: There is currently no mechanism defined for the Board to initiate a SIFR. Should there be? avri On 04-Jun-15 16:10, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Here is DT-M's final proposed response to comment review tool item # 246 regarding AFRALO's suggestion that the PTI Board be allowed to initiate a SIFR directly: *"DT M carefully considered the recommendation to allow the PTI Board to initiate a Special IFR but decided against that while at the same time noting that the PTI Board could request that the ICANN Board consider doing so."* If there are any questions, please let me know. Chuck "This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately." _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987

I see this as a community power. Frankly, the Board could initiate an RFP or other change to IANA functions operations without a SIFR. Greg On Friday, June 5, 2015, Staffan Jonson <staffan.jonson@iis.se> wrote:

The rationale for giving ICANN (or PTI) the ability to initiate a SIFR would allude to some general principles of transparency (’everybody should be able to check everybody’). In my view the principles behind is an interesting discussion, but not very much more. The current Hybrid model and contract governance give ICANN a lot of power, the upper hand so to say. So according to proposal ICANN will already control IANA functions operations.

So who would ICANN scrutinize with its review power? Its own supporting organizations? SO:s and AC:s? Most cc:s are not even contracted with ICANN, and have few plans to become. Or would ICANN need to review its own IANA operations with an external organization? The latter would to me indicate lack of control. Or dual representation by MS community.

So a practical answer is: It wouldn’t need to. And I see very few possibilities of change in this area.

So my answer is more along a pragmatic stream: Is this relevant for the CWG? Now? Do we really, really need to include this aspect in transition? This late? Are we limiting our deliberations to what is absolutely necessary for the transition, or are we – once the window of ooportunity is open- trying to make it a perfect world? I would say no to both.

Another answer relates to direct process: The need for a review is about accountability, so any power for ICANN to review itself should preferably be discussed by CCWG (WS2).

However what might be valid, is that ICG soon will have to handle up to three parallel mechanisms for review (one from each community within CWG). Maybe we should remind them of the potential need to coordinate review mechanisms.

Staffan

With best regards

Staffan Jonson

Mr. Staffan Jonson, Senior Policy Adviser

.SE (The Internet Infrastructure foundation)

BOX 7399 | SE-103 91 STOCKHOLM | SWEDEN

Direct: +46 8 452 35 74 | SMS: +46 73 317 39 67

staffan.jonson@iis.se <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','staffan.jonson@iis.se');> | www.iis.se/en

*Från:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');>] *För *Martin Boyle *Skickat:* den 5 juni 2015 12:01 *Till:* Matthew Shears; Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> *Ämne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments

I struggle to imagine why the ICANN Board (any more than the PTI Board) would want to initiate an SIFR, in particular without the support of the community. Worse, I would feel that there would be a “cunning plan” somewhere behind such a decision and that leaves me seriously questioning why we would want this process to be triggered in such a way. No support for an SIFR, no overriding ICANN (or PTI) Board to ignore interests of the community.

If someone can see possible reasons, I’d like to hear them. Then any trigger route could be defined (and limited) more carefully.

Martin

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');>] *On Behalf Of *Matthew Shears *Sent:* 05 June 2015 06:17 *To:* Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments

But what would the thresholds be? And, currently an SIFR comes as a result of other mechanisms being exhausted as well as the IANA probems resolution process.

*The Special IFR would be triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. *

Would we require a supermajority of only the Board, or in addition to the ccNSO and GNSO. And as a result of the mechanisms being exhausted? I would assume so.

Matthew

On 6/5/2015 4:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

I can't

--MM

-----Original Message-----

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship');>-

bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bounces@icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck

Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 5:02 PM

To: avri@acm.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@acm.org');>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');>

Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public

comments

Good catch Avri and good question. Can anyone think of a reason why the

ICANN Board should not be able to request an SIFR?

Chuck

-----Original Message-----

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship');>-

bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bounces@icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria

Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:39 PM

To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');>

Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public

comments

Hi,

I am part of DT-M and partly responsible for this.

But. It has a cost, which I did mention on the DT-M list:

There is currently no mechanism defined for the Board to initiate a SIFR.

Should there be?

avri

On 04-Jun-15 16:10, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

Here is DT-M's final proposed response to comment review tool item #

246 regarding AFRALO's suggestion that the PTI Board be allowed to

initiate a SIFR directly: *"DT M carefully considered the

recommendation to allow the PTI Board to initiate a Special IFR but

decided against that while at the same time noting that the PTI Board

could request that the ICANN Board consider doing so."*

If there are any questions, please let me know.

Chuck

"This message (including any attachments) is intended only

for the use of the individual or entity to which it is

addressed, and may contain information that is non-public,

proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from

disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as

attorney work product. If you are not the intended

recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,

dissemination, distribution, or copying of this

communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received

this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete

this message immediately."

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

---

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

--

Matthew Shears

Global Internet Policy and Human Rights

Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)

+ 44 (0)771 247 2987

I’m missing something, Matthew. I’d have issues with ICANN launching an RfP without some sort of community endorsement. After all, ICANN becomes the stewardship home of a community resource because it brings in the multi-stakeholder community. Why might ICANN want to launch an RfP? If there are good reasons, then we would need to write around this (these) particular reason(s). As a conspiracy theorist, I need convincing that this is a benign power. Martin From: Matthew Shears [mailto:mshears@cdt.org] Sent: 05 June 2015 14:54 To: Greg Shatan; Staffan Jonson Cc: Martin Boyle; Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments I agree Greg and have similar concerns to Staffan and Martin. But on your second point have we specified how the board would do this: the Board could initiate an RFP or other change to IANA functions operations without a SIFR Matthew On 6/5/2015 12:48 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: I see this as a community power. Frankly, the Board could initiate an RFP or other change to IANA functions operations without a SIFR. Greg On Friday, June 5, 2015, Staffan Jonson <staffan.jonson@iis.se<mailto:staffan.jonson@iis.se>> wrote: The rationale for giving ICANN (or PTI) the ability to initiate a SIFR would allude to some general principles of transparency (’everybody should be able to check everybody’). In my view the principles behind is an interesting discussion, but not very much more. The current Hybrid model and contract governance give ICANN a lot of power, the upper hand so to say. So according to proposal ICANN will already control IANA functions operations. So who would ICANN scrutinize with its review power? Its own supporting organizations? SO:s and AC:s? Most cc:s are not even contracted with ICANN, and have few plans to become. Or would ICANN need to review its own IANA operations with an external organization? The latter would to me indicate lack of control. Or dual representation by MS community. So a practical answer is: It wouldn’t need to. And I see very few possibilities of change in this area. So my answer is more along a pragmatic stream: Is this relevant for the CWG? Now? Do we really, really need to include this aspect in transition? This late? Are we limiting our deliberations to what is absolutely necessary for the transition, or are we – once the window of ooportunity is open- trying to make it a perfect world? I would say no to both. Another answer relates to direct process: The need for a review is about accountability, so any power for ICANN to review itself should preferably be discussed by CCWG (WS2). However what might be valid, is that ICG soon will have to handle up to three parallel mechanisms for review (one from each community within CWG). Maybe we should remind them of the potential need to coordinate review mechanisms. Staffan With best regards Staffan Jonson Mr. Staffan Jonson, Senior Policy Adviser .SE (The Internet Infrastructure foundation) BOX 7399 | SE-103 91 STOCKHOLM | SWEDEN Direct: +46 8 452 35 74 | SMS: +46 73 317 39 67 staffan.jonson@iis.se<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','staffan.jonson@iis.se');> | www.iis.se/en<http://www.iis.se/en> Från: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');>] För Martin Boyle Skickat: den 5 juni 2015 12:01 Till: Matthew Shears; Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> Ämne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments I struggle to imagine why the ICANN Board (any more than the PTI Board) would want to initiate an SIFR, in particular without the support of the community. Worse, I would feel that there would be a “cunning plan” somewhere behind such a decision and that leaves me seriously questioning why we would want this process to be triggered in such a way. No support for an SIFR, no overriding ICANN (or PTI) Board to ignore interests of the community. If someone can see possible reasons, I’d like to hear them. Then any trigger route could be defined (and limited) more carefully. Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears Sent: 05 June 2015 06:17 To: Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments But what would the thresholds be? And, currently an SIFR comes as a result of other mechanisms being exhausted as well as the IANA probems resolution process. The Special IFR would be triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. Would we require a supermajority of only the Board, or in addition to the ccNSO and GNSO. And as a result of the mechanisms being exhausted? I would assume so. Matthew On 6/5/2015 4:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: I can't --MM -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship');>- bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bounces@icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 5:02 PM To: avri@acm.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@acm.org');>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments Good catch Avri and good question. Can anyone think of a reason why the ICANN Board should not be able to request an SIFR? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship');>- bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bounces@icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:39 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments Hi, I am part of DT-M and partly responsible for this. But. It has a cost, which I did mention on the DT-M list: There is currently no mechanism defined for the Board to initiate a SIFR. Should there be? avri On 04-Jun-15 16:10, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Here is DT-M's final proposed response to comment review tool item # 246 regarding AFRALO's suggestion that the PTI Board be allowed to initiate a SIFR directly: *"DT M carefully considered the recommendation to allow the PTI Board to initiate a Special IFR but decided against that while at the same time noting that the PTI Board could request that the ICANN Board consider doing so."* If there are any questions, please let me know. Chuck "This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately." _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987 -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987

The discussion about whether the ICANN Board should be allowed to initiate a SIFR has been very useful in my view. Based on all the points made so far, I am leaning toward not giving the ICANN Board the ability to initiate an SIFR and, considering where we are time-wise in terms of finalizing our proposal, I think we need to make a decision on this today if possible. To bring all of this back into focus, the catalyst for this issue came from this DT-M recommendation: “Here is DT-M's final proposed response to comment review tool item # 246 regarding AFRALO's suggestion that the PTI Board be allowed to initiate a SIFR directly: *"DT M carefully considered the recommendation to allow the PTI Board to initiate a Special IFR but decided against that while at the same time noting that the PTI Board could request that the ICANN Board consider doing so."*” I suggest the following as response to AFRALO’s comment: “DT M carefully considered the suggestion to allow the PTI Board to initiate a Special IFR but decided to recommend that the CWG not support it. After additional and fairly extensive discussion, the CWG decided to support the DT-M recommendation, noting that the PTI Board could communicate any reasons it has for further escalation of a problem to the CSC, which could then consider whether to escalate the problem to the ccNSO and GNSO.” Is this a reasonable response? Edits are welcome. But let’s try to resolve this today. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 8:11 AM To: Martin Boyle; Greg Shatan; Staffan Jonson Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments Martin - I completely agree - and wondering the same - my question was to more to whether or not we have stated this power anywhere - I don't recall (and don't think so). On 6/5/2015 8:08 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: I’m missing something, Matthew. I’d have issues with ICANN launching an RfP without some sort of community endorsement. After all, ICANN becomes the stewardship home of a community resource because it brings in the multi-stakeholder community. Why might ICANN want to launch an RfP? If there are good reasons, then we would need to write around this (these) particular reason(s). As a conspiracy theorist, I need convincing that this is a benign power. Martin From: Matthew Shears [mailto:mshears@cdt.org] Sent: 05 June 2015 14:54 To: Greg Shatan; Staffan Jonson Cc: Martin Boyle; Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments I agree Greg and have similar concerns to Staffan and Martin. But on your second point have we specified how the board would do this: the Board could initiate an RFP or other change to IANA functions operations without a SIFR Matthew On 6/5/2015 12:48 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: I see this as a community power. Frankly, the Board could initiate an RFP or other change to IANA functions operations without a SIFR. Greg On Friday, June 5, 2015, Staffan Jonson <staffan.jonson@iis.se<mailto:staffan.jonson@iis.se>> wrote: The rationale for giving ICANN (or PTI) the ability to initiate a SIFR would allude to some general principles of transparency (’everybody should be able to check everybody’). In my view the principles behind is an interesting discussion, but not very much more. The current Hybrid model and contract governance give ICANN a lot of power, the upper hand so to say. So according to proposal ICANN will already control IANA functions operations. So who would ICANN scrutinize with its review power? Its own supporting organizations? SO:s and AC:s? Most cc:s are not even contracted with ICANN, and have few plans to become. Or would ICANN need to review its own IANA operations with an external organization? The latter would to me indicate lack of control. Or dual representation by MS community. So a practical answer is: It wouldn’t need to. And I see very few possibilities of change in this area. So my answer is more along a pragmatic stream: Is this relevant for the CWG? Now? Do we really, really need to include this aspect in transition? This late? Are we limiting our deliberations to what is absolutely necessary for the transition, or are we – once the window of ooportunity is open- trying to make it a perfect world? I would say no to both. Another answer relates to direct process: The need for a review is about accountability, so any power for ICANN to review itself should preferably be discussed by CCWG (WS2). However what might be valid, is that ICG soon will have to handle up to three parallel mechanisms for review (one from each community within CWG). Maybe we should remind them of the potential need to coordinate review mechanisms. Staffan With best regards Staffan Jonson Mr. Staffan Jonson, Senior Policy Adviser .SE (The Internet Infrastructure foundation) BOX 7399 | SE-103 91 STOCKHOLM | SWEDEN Direct: +46 8 452 35 74 | SMS: +46 73 317 39 67 staffan.jonson@iis.se<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','staffan.jonson@iis.se');> | www.iis.se/en<http://www.iis.se/en> Från: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');>] För Martin Boyle Skickat: den 5 juni 2015 12:01 Till: Matthew Shears; Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> Ämne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments I struggle to imagine why the ICANN Board (any more than the PTI Board) would want to initiate an SIFR, in particular without the support of the community. Worse, I would feel that there would be a “cunning plan” somewhere behind such a decision and that leaves me seriously questioning why we would want this process to be triggered in such a way. No support for an SIFR, no overriding ICANN (or PTI) Board to ignore interests of the community. If someone can see possible reasons, I’d like to hear them. Then any trigger route could be defined (and limited) more carefully. Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears Sent: 05 June 2015 06:17 To: Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments But what would the thresholds be? And, currently an SIFR comes as a result of other mechanisms being exhausted as well as the IANA probems resolution process. The Special IFR would be triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. Would we require a supermajority of only the Board, or in addition to the ccNSO and GNSO. And as a result of the mechanisms being exhausted? I would assume so. Matthew On 6/5/2015 4:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: I can't --MM -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship');>- bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bounces@icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 5:02 PM To: avri@acm.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@acm.org');>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments Good catch Avri and good question. Can anyone think of a reason why the ICANN Board should not be able to request an SIFR? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship');>- bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bounces@icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:39 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments Hi, I am part of DT-M and partly responsible for this. But. It has a cost, which I did mention on the DT-M list: There is currently no mechanism defined for the Board to initiate a SIFR. Should there be? avri On 04-Jun-15 16:10, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Here is DT-M's final proposed response to comment review tool item # 246 regarding AFRALO's suggestion that the PTI Board be allowed to initiate a SIFR directly: *"DT M carefully considered the recommendation to allow the PTI Board to initiate a Special IFR but decided against that while at the same time noting that the PTI Board could request that the ICANN Board consider doing so."* If there are any questions, please let me know. Chuck "This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately." _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987 -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987 -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987

Thanks Maarten. Chuck From: Maarten Simon [mailto:maarten.simon@sidn.nl] Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 11:44 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Matthew Shears; Martin Boyle; Greg Shatan; Staffan Jonson Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments Importance: High Hi Chuck I might be missing something, but the discussion is, if I understand it correctly, on the ability of the ICANN board while AFRALO's suggestion is on the PTI Board (as is your suggested response). I however agree with you and others that I do not see why the ICANN board would ever want to initiate a SIFR as it can directly influence the IANA performance through its powers over PTI. So my opinion is to not give the ICANN board this ability. Best, Maarten From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Friday 5 June 2015 17:17 To: Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>>, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, Staffan Jonson <staffan.jonson@iis.se<mailto:staffan.jonson@iis.se>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments The discussion about whether the ICANN Board should be allowed to initiate a SIFR has been very useful in my view. Based on all the points made so far, I am leaning toward not giving the ICANN Board the ability to initiate an SIFR and, considering where we are time-wise in terms of finalizing our proposal, I think we need to make a decision on this today if possible. To bring all of this back into focus, the catalyst for this issue came from this DT-M recommendation: "Here is DT-M's final proposed response to comment review tool item # 246 regarding AFRALO's suggestion that the PTI Board be allowed to initiate a SIFR directly: *"DT M carefully considered the recommendation to allow the PTI Board to initiate a Special IFR but decided against that while at the same time noting that the PTI Board could request that the ICANN Board consider doing so."*" I suggest the following as response to AFRALO's comment: "DT M carefully considered the suggestion to allow the PTI Board to initiate a Special IFR but decided to recommend that the CWG not support it. After additional and fairly extensive discussion, the CWG decided to support the DT-M recommendation, noting that the PTI Board could communicate any reasons it has for further escalation of a problem to the CSC, which could then consider whether to escalate the problem to the ccNSO and GNSO." Is this a reasonable response? Edits are welcome. But let's try to resolve this today. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 8:11 AM To: Martin Boyle; Greg Shatan; Staffan Jonson Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments Martin - I completely agree - and wondering the same - my question was to more to whether or not we have stated this power anywhere - I don't recall (and don't think so). On 6/5/2015 8:08 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: I'm missing something, Matthew. I'd have issues with ICANN launching an RfP without some sort of community endorsement. After all, ICANN becomes the stewardship home of a community resource because it brings in the multi-stakeholder community. Why might ICANN want to launch an RfP? If there are good reasons, then we would need to write around this (these) particular reason(s). As a conspiracy theorist, I need convincing that this is a benign power. Martin From: Matthew Shears [mailto:mshears@cdt.org] Sent: 05 June 2015 14:54 To: Greg Shatan; Staffan Jonson Cc: Martin Boyle; Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments I agree Greg and have similar concerns to Staffan and Martin. But on your second point have we specified how the board would do this: the Board could initiate an RFP or other change to IANA functions operations without a SIFR Matthew On 6/5/2015 12:48 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: I see this as a community power. Frankly, the Board could initiate an RFP or other change to IANA functions operations without a SIFR. Greg On Friday, June 5, 2015, Staffan Jonson <staffan.jonson@iis.se<mailto:staffan.jonson@iis.se>> wrote: The rationale for giving ICANN (or PTI) the ability to initiate a SIFR would allude to some general principles of transparency ('everybody should be able to check everybody'). In my view the principles behind is an interesting discussion, but not very much more. The current Hybrid model and contract governance give ICANN a lot of power, the upper hand so to say. So according to proposal ICANN will already control IANA functions operations. So who would ICANN scrutinize with its review power? Its own supporting organizations? SO:s and AC:s? Most cc:s are not even contracted with ICANN, and have few plans to become. Or would ICANN need to review its own IANA operations with an external organization? The latter would to me indicate lack of control. Or dual representation by MS community. So a practical answer is: It wouldn't need to. And I see very few possibilities of change in this area. So my answer is more along a pragmatic stream: Is this relevant for the CWG? Now? Do we really, really need to include this aspect in transition? This late? Are we limiting our deliberations to what is absolutely necessary for the transition, or are we - once the window of ooportunity is open- trying to make it a perfect world? I would say no to both. Another answer relates to direct process: The need for a review is about accountability, so any power for ICANN to review itself should preferably be discussed by CCWG (WS2). However what might be valid, is that ICG soon will have to handle up to three parallel mechanisms for review (one from each community within CWG). Maybe we should remind them of the potential need to coordinate review mechanisms. Staffan With best regards Staffan Jonson Mr. Staffan Jonson, Senior Policy Adviser .SE (The Internet Infrastructure foundation) BOX 7399 | SE-103 91 STOCKHOLM | SWEDEN Direct: +46 8 452 35 74 | SMS: +46 73 317 39 67 staffan.jonson@iis.se<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','staffan.jonson@iis.se');> | www.iis.se/en<http://www.iis.se/en> Från: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');>] För Martin Boyle Skickat: den 5 juni 2015 12:01 Till: Matthew Shears; Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> Ämne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments I struggle to imagine why the ICANN Board (any more than the PTI Board) would want to initiate an SIFR, in particular without the support of the community. Worse, I would feel that there would be a "cunning plan" somewhere behind such a decision and that leaves me seriously questioning why we would want this process to be triggered in such a way. No support for an SIFR, no overriding ICANN (or PTI) Board to ignore interests of the community. If someone can see possible reasons, I'd like to hear them. Then any trigger route could be defined (and limited) more carefully. Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears Sent: 05 June 2015 06:17 To: Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments But what would the thresholds be? And, currently an SIFR comes as a result of other mechanisms being exhausted as well as the IANA probems resolution process. The Special IFR would be triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. Would we require a supermajority of only the Board, or in addition to the ccNSO and GNSO. And as a result of the mechanisms being exhausted? I would assume so. Matthew On 6/5/2015 4:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: I can't --MM -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship');>- bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bounces@icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 5:02 PM To: avri@acm.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@acm.org');>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments Good catch Avri and good question. Can anyone think of a reason why the ICANN Board should not be able to request an SIFR? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship');>- bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bounces@icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:39 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments Hi, I am part of DT-M and partly responsible for this. But. It has a cost, which I did mention on the DT-M list: There is currently no mechanism defined for the Board to initiate a SIFR. Should there be? avri On 04-Jun-15 16:10, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Here is DT-M's final proposed response to comment review tool item # 246 regarding AFRALO's suggestion that the PTI Board be allowed to initiate a SIFR directly: *"DT M carefully considered the recommendation to allow the PTI Board to initiate a Special IFR but decided against that while at the same time noting that the PTI Board could request that the ICANN Board consider doing so."* If there are any questions, please let me know. Chuck "This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately." _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987 -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987 -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987

To Milton’s point: “Wouldn’t that control also extend to calling for an RFP to see if it could get a better service or better deal from someone else?” Under the process that we have developed, my understanding is we would only get to the point of calling for an RFP after following quite a detailed escalation path that has resulted from continued poor performance of the IANA function that was not able to be remedied. I don’t believe under the process we have developed, an RFP could be called for to see if you could get a better service or better deal from someone else. So if the Board was to launch an RFP, it should only be able to do so if it followed the same path. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Friday, 5 June 2015 1:53 PM To: Martin Boyle; Staffan Jonson Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk] I’d have issues with ICANN launching an RfP without some sort of community endorsement. After all, ICANN becomes the stewardship home of a community resource because it brings in the multi-stakeholder community. Why might ICANN want to launch an RfP? If there are good reasons, then we would need to write around this (these) particular reason(s). As a conspiracy theorist, I need convincing that this is a benign power. What? We were told that ICANN needed to have majority ‘insider’ control of PTI so that it would be accountable for it. Wouldn’t that control also extend to calling for an RFP to see if it could get a better service or better deal from someone else? How is this power any more or less benign that appointing a majority of the PTI board? If you wanted ICANN in control (and everyone on this thread did) why would you not also want them to be able to call for an RFP? As for “community endorsement,” I thought when we rejected the Contract Co. idea we were rejecting the idea that the community should be entrusted with the stewardship function. Now you seem to be backtracking and saying that you want the community to be the steward, not ICANN. I am not saying I disagree with Martin’s point (or that I agree with it). I just think this latest strand of discussion reveals some serious confusion about some fundamental issues. Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>

I am inclined to agree with this: " I do not think that an RFP should be initiated without an SIFR & SCWG." Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 11:51 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments Hi, That is a fascinating question and perhaps a hole in the solution. I do not think that an RFP should be initiated without an SIFR & SCWG. I have no real issue with the Board, or even the members if we have members, initiating a SIFR if they see problems no one else does. Perhaps this is the catch all for the wider community issue that some claim are not included. But to have them just decide on their own, for commercial or 'profitability' reasons perhaps, without community involvement seems very inappropriate. avri On 05-Jun-15 07:53, Matthew Shears wrote:

I agree Greg and have similar concerns to Staffan and Martin. But on your second point have we specified how the board would do this:

t/he Board could initiate an RFP or other change to IANA functions operations without a SIFR/

Matthew

On 6/5/2015 12:48 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

...

I see this as a community power. Frankly, the Board could initiate an RFP or other change to IANA functions operations without a SIFR.

Greg

On Friday, June 5, 2015, Staffan Jonson <staffan.jonson@iis.se <mailto:staffan.jonson@iis.se>> wrote:

The rationale for giving ICANN (or PTI) the ability to initiate a SIFR would allude to some general principles of transparency ('everybody should be able to check everybody'). In my view the principles behind is an interesting discussion, but not very much more. The current Hybrid model and contract governance give ICANN a lot of power, the upper hand so to say. So according to proposal ICANN will already control IANA functions operations.

So who would ICANN scrutinize with its review power? Its own supporting organizations? SO:s and AC:s? Most cc:s are not even contracted with ICANN, and have few plans to become. Or would ICANN need to review its own IANA operations with an external organization? The latter would to me indicate lack of control. Or dual representation by MS community.

So a practical answer is: It wouldn't need to. And I see very few possibilities of change in this area.

So my answer is more along a pragmatic stream: Is this relevant for the CWG? Now? Do we really, really need to include this aspect in transition? This late? Are we limiting our deliberations to what is absolutely necessary for the transition, or are we - once the window of ooportunity is open- trying to make it a perfect world? I would say no to both.

Another answer relates to direct process: The need for a review is about accountability, so any power for ICANN to review itself should preferably be discussed by CCWG (WS2).

However what might be valid, is that ICG soon will have to handle up to three parallel mechanisms for review (one from each community within CWG). Maybe we should remind them of the potential need to coordinate review mechanisms.

Staffan

With best regards

Staffan Jonson

Mr. Staffan Jonson, Senior Policy Adviser

.SE (The Internet Infrastructure foundation)

BOX 7399 | SE-103 91 STOCKHOLM | SWEDEN

Direct: +46 8 452 35 74 | SMS: +46 73 317 39 67

staffan.jonson@iis.se <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','staffan.jonson@iis.se');> | www.iis.se/en <http://www.iis.se/en>

*Från:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');>] *För *Martin Boyle *Skickat:*den 5 juni 2015 12:01 *Till:* Matthew Shears; Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> *Ämne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments

I struggle to imagine why the ICANN Board (any more than the PTI Board) would want to initiate an SIFR, in particular without the support of the community. Worse, I would feel that there would be a "cunning plan" somewhere behind such a decision and that leaves me seriously questioning why we would want this process to be triggered in such a way. No support for an SIFR, no overriding ICANN (or PTI) Board to ignore interests of the community.

If someone can see possible reasons, I'd like to hear them. Then any trigger route could be defined (and limited) more carefully.

Martin

*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');>] *On Behalf Of *Matthew Shears *Sent:* 05 June 2015 06:17 *To:* Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments

But what would the thresholds be? And, currently an SIFR comes as a result of other mechanisms being exhausted as well as the IANA probems resolution process.

/The Special IFR would be triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. /

Would we require a supermajority of only the Board, or in addition to the ccNSO and GNSO. And as a result of the mechanisms being exhausted? I would assume so.

Matthew

On 6/5/2015 4:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

I can't

--MM

-----Original Message-----

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship');>-

bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bounces@icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck

Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 5:02 PM

To: avri@acm.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@acm.org');>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');>

Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public

comments

Good catch Avri and good question. Can anyone think of a reason why the

ICANN Board should not be able to request an SIFR?

Chuck

-----Original Message-----

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship');>-

bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bounces@icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria

Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:39 PM

To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');>

Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public

comments

Hi,

I am part of DT-M and partly responsible for this.

But. It has a cost, which I did mention on the DT-M list:

There is currently no mechanism defined for the Board to initiate a SIFR.

Should there be?

avri

On 04-Jun-15 16:10, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

Here is DT-M's final proposed response to comment review tool item #

246 regarding AFRALO's suggestion that the PTI Board be allowed to

initiate a SIFR directly: *"DT M carefully considered the

recommendation to allow the PTI Board to initiate a Special IFR but

decided against that while at the same time noting that the PTI Board

could request that the ICANN Board consider doing so."*

If there are any questions, please let me know.

Chuck

"This message (including any attachments) is intended only

for the use of the individual or entity to which it is

addressed, and may contain information that is non-public,

proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from

disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as

attorney work product. If you are not the intended

recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,

dissemination, distribution, or copying of this

communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received

this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete

this message immediately."

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

---

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

--

Matthew Shears

Global Internet Policy and Human Rights

Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)

+ 44 (0)771 247 2987

-- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987

_______________________________________________ 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

What you said Greg is all the more reason why the accountability mechanisms need to be strong, just in case. Chuck From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 3:27 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments I think that unless we prohibit it, it is an inherent right of the Board (and management) to explore and potentially adopt other methods and/or providers for carrying out ICANN's responsibilities relating to the IANA Functions. It may be as simple as some small (in size, not in effect) drafting fixes that make it clear that this is the only path to explore or adopt such changes. Right now it appears highly unlikely that the Board and management would ever want to explore a radical change in how the IANA Functions are carried out relative to ICANN. Indeed, the emphasis has been on maintaining the status quo (albeit without the NTIA's involvement). Indeed, ICANN's ultimate responsibility for the IANA Functions is a core value in the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, so completely exiting the "IANA Functions business" at all levels would require serious changes in governance documents, etc., etc., which would run up against the powers relating to changing bylaws that the CCWG contemplates. All that said, off the top of my head, I can't recall any formal limitation on ICANN's ability to exercise its business judgment with regard to making major changes in this area, short of a complete exit. Maybe there are some existing limitations that would apply, and I'm not thinking it through. (For instance, would such a potential change trigger a PDP? Would such a change even be a policy decision?) There may be practical limitations -- imagine the uproar if a unilateral, top-down decision was taken to outsource the IANA Functions to the Root Zone Management Company (http://www.rootzonemanagement.com.au/about.htm). But an "uproar" is not an enforceable right or prohibition. So I would agree that this is a "hole" or at least an unanticipated angle on this issue. Greg On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I am inclined to agree with this: " I do not think that an RFP should be initiated without an SIFR & SCWG." 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: Friday, June 05, 2015 11:51 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments Hi, That is a fascinating question and perhaps a hole in the solution. I do not think that an RFP should be initiated without an SIFR & SCWG. I have no real issue with the Board, or even the members if we have members, initiating a SIFR if they see problems no one else does. Perhaps this is the catch all for the wider community issue that some claim are not included. But to have them just decide on their own, for commercial or 'profitability' reasons perhaps, without community involvement seems very inappropriate. avri On 05-Jun-15 07:53, Matthew Shears wrote:

I agree Greg and have similar concerns to Staffan and Martin. But on your second point have we specified how the board would do this:

t/he Board could initiate an RFP or other change to IANA functions operations without a SIFR/

Matthew

On 6/5/2015 12:48 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

...

I see this as a community power. Frankly, the Board could initiate an RFP or other change to IANA functions operations without a SIFR.

Greg

On Friday, June 5, 2015, Staffan Jonson <staffan.jonson@iis.se<mailto:staffan.jonson@iis.se> <mailto:staffan.jonson@iis.se<mailto:staffan.jonson@iis.se>>> wrote:

The rationale for giving ICANN (or PTI) the ability to initiate a SIFR would allude to some general principles of transparency ('everybody should be able to check everybody'). In my view the principles behind is an interesting discussion, but not very much more. The current Hybrid model and contract governance give ICANN a lot of power, the upper hand so to say. So according to proposal ICANN will already control IANA functions operations.

So who would ICANN scrutinize with its review power? Its own supporting organizations? SO:s and AC:s? Most cc:s are not even contracted with ICANN, and have few plans to become. Or would ICANN need to review its own IANA operations with an external organization? The latter would to me indicate lack of control. Or dual representation by MS community.

So a practical answer is: It wouldn't need to. And I see very few possibilities of change in this area.

So my answer is more along a pragmatic stream: Is this relevant for the CWG? Now? Do we really, really need to include this aspect in transition? This late? Are we limiting our deliberations to what is absolutely necessary for the transition, or are we - once the window of ooportunity is open- trying to make it a perfect world? I would say no to both.

Another answer relates to direct process: The need for a review is about accountability, so any power for ICANN to review itself should preferably be discussed by CCWG (WS2).

However what might be valid, is that ICG soon will have to handle up to three parallel mechanisms for review (one from each community within CWG). Maybe we should remind them of the potential need to coordinate review mechanisms.

Staffan

With best regards

Staffan Jonson

Mr. Staffan Jonson, Senior Policy Adviser

.SE (The Internet Infrastructure foundation)

BOX 7399 | SE-103 91 STOCKHOLM | SWEDEN

Direct: +46 8 452 35 74<tel:%2B46%208%20452%2035%2074> | SMS: +46 73 317 39 67<tel:%2B46%2073%20317%2039%2067>

staffan.jonson@iis.se<mailto:staffan.jonson@iis.se> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','staffan.jonson@iis.se<mailto:staffan.jonson@iis.se>');> | www.iis.se/en<http://www.iis.se/en> <http://www.iis.se/en>

*Från:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>');>] *För *Martin Boyle *Skickat:*den 5 juni 2015 12:01 *Till:* Matthew Shears; Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>');> *Ämne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments

I struggle to imagine why the ICANN Board (any more than the PTI Board) would want to initiate an SIFR, in particular without the support of the community. Worse, I would feel that there would be a "cunning plan" somewhere behind such a decision and that leaves me seriously questioning why we would want this process to be triggered in such a way. No support for an SIFR, no overriding ICANN (or PTI) Board to ignore interests of the community.

If someone can see possible reasons, I'd like to hear them. Then any trigger route could be defined (and limited) more carefully.

Martin

*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>');>] *On Behalf Of *Matthew Shears *Sent:* 05 June 2015 06:17 *To:* Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>');> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments

But what would the thresholds be? And, currently an SIFR comes as a result of other mechanisms being exhausted as well as the IANA probems resolution process.

/The Special IFR would be triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. /

Would we require a supermajority of only the Board, or in addition to the ccNSO and GNSO. And as a result of the mechanisms being exhausted? I would assume so.

Matthew

On 6/5/2015 4:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

I can't

--MM

-----Original Message-----

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship<mailto:cwg-stewardship> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship');>-

bounces@icann.org<mailto:bounces@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bounces@icann.org<mailto:bounces@icann.org>');>] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck

Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 5:02 PM

To: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>');>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>');>

Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public

comments

Good catch Avri and good question. Can anyone think of a reason why the

ICANN Board should not be able to request an SIFR?

Chuck

-----Original Message-----

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship<mailto:cwg-stewardship> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship');>-

bounces@icann.org<mailto:bounces@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bounces@icann.org<mailto:bounces@icann.org>');>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria

Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:39 PM

To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>');>

Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public

comments

Hi,

I am part of DT-M and partly responsible for this.

But. It has a cost, which I did mention on the DT-M list:

There is currently no mechanism defined for the Board to initiate a SIFR.

Should there be?

avri

On 04-Jun-15 16:10, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

Here is DT-M's final proposed response to comment review tool item #

246 regarding AFRALO's suggestion that the PTI Board be allowed to

initiate a SIFR directly: *"DT M carefully considered the

recommendation to allow the PTI Board to initiate a Special IFR but

decided against that while at the same time noting that the PTI Board

could request that the ICANN Board consider doing so."*

If there are any questions, please let me know.

Chuck

"This message (including any attachments) is intended only

for the use of the individual or entity to which it is

addressed, and may contain information that is non-public,

proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from

disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as

attorney work product. If you are not the intended

recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,

dissemination, distribution, or copying of this

communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received

this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete

this message immediately."

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>');>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

---

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>');>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

--

Matthew Shears

Global Internet Policy and Human Rights

Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)

+ 44 (0)771 247 2987<tel:%2B%2044%20%280%29771%20247%202987>

-- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987<tel:%2B%2044%20%280%29771%20247%202987>

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ 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

Yes, the right to call for an RFP does not also mean that it has the unilateral right to switch providers.

-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, June 5, 2015 4:24 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments

Hi,

The answer might be as simple as crafting language in the bylaws defining the IFR, SIFR & SCWG that empowers the Board to kick off a SIFR - as the ability to kick off a review seems a reasonable activity for the Board, but prohibits them from taking further action without the recommendations of an SIFR and/or SCWG.

avri

On 05-Jun-15 15:27, Greg Shatan wrote:

...

I think that unless we prohibit it, it is an inherent right of the Board (and management) to explore and potentially adopt other methods and/or providers for carrying out ICANN's responsibilities relating to the IANA Functions. It may be as simple as some small (in size, not in effect) drafting fixes that make it clear that this is the only path to explore or adopt such changes.

Right now it appears highly unlikely that the Board and management would ever want to explore a radical change in how the IANA Functions are carried out relative to ICANN. Indeed, the emphasis has been on maintaining the status quo (albeit without the NTIA's involvement). Indeed, ICANN's ultimate responsibility for the IANA Functions is a core value in the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, so completely exiting the "IANA Functions business" at all levels would require serious changes in governance documents, etc., etc., which would run up against the powers relating to changing bylaws that the CCWG contemplates.

All that said, off the top of my head, I can't recall any formal limitation on ICANN's ability to exercise its business judgment with regard to making major changes in this area, short of a complete exit. Maybe there are some existing limitations that would apply, and I'm not thinking it through. (For instance, would such a potential change trigger a PDP? Would such a change even be a policy decision?) There may be practical limitations -- imagine the uproar if a unilateral, top-down decision was taken to outsource the IANA Functions to the Root Zone Management Company (http://www.rootzonemanagement.com.au/about.htm). But an "uproar" is not an enforceable right or prohibition.

So I would agree that this is a "hole" or at least an unanticipated angle on this issue.

Greg

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote:

I am inclined to agree with this: " I do not think that an RFP should be initiated without an SIFR & SCWG."

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: Friday, June 05, 2015 11:51 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments

Hi,

That is a fascinating question and perhaps a hole in the solution. I do not think that an RFP should be initiated without an SIFR & SCWG. I have no real issue with the Board, or even the members if we have members, initiating a SIFR if they see problems no one else does. Perhaps this is the catch all for the wider community issue that some claim are not included.

But to have them just decide on their own, for commercial or 'profitability' reasons perhaps, without community involvement seems very inappropriate.

avri

On 05-Jun-15 07:53, Matthew Shears wrote: > I agree Greg and have similar concerns to Staffan and Martin. But on > your second point have we specified how the board would do this: > > t/he Board could initiate an RFP or other change to IANA functions > operations without a SIFR/ > > Matthew > > On 6/5/2015 12:48 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: >> I see this as a community power. Frankly, the Board could initiate an >> RFP or other change to IANA functions operations without a SIFR. >> >> Greg >> >> On Friday, June 5, 2015, Staffan Jonson <staffan.jonson@iis.se <mailto:staffan.jonson@iis.se> >> <mailto:staffan.jonson@iis.se <mailto:staffan.jonson@iis.se>>> wrote: >> >> The rationale for giving ICANN (or PTI) the ability to initiate a >> SIFR would allude to some general principles of transparency >> ('everybody should be able to check everybody'). In my view the >> principles behind is an interesting discussion, but not very much >> more. The current Hybrid model and contract governance give ICANN >> a lot of power, the upper hand so to say. So according to >> proposal ICANN will already control IANA functions operations. >> >> So who would ICANN scrutinize with its review power? Its own >> supporting organizations? SO:s and AC:s? Most cc:s are not even >> contracted with ICANN, and have few plans to become. Or would >> ICANN need to review its own IANA operations with an external >> organization? The latter would to me indicate lack of control. Or >> dual representation by MS community. >> >> So a practical answer is: It wouldn't need to. And I see very few >> possibilities of change in this area. >> >> So my answer is more along a pragmatic stream: Is this relevant >> for the CWG? Now? Do we really, really need to include this >> aspect in transition? This late? Are we limiting our >> deliberations to what is absolutely necessary for the transition, >> or are we - once the window of ooportunity is open- trying to >> make it a perfect world? I would say no to both. >> >> Another answer relates to direct process: The need for a review >> is about accountability, so any power for ICANN to review itself >> should preferably be discussed by CCWG (WS2). >> >> >> >> However what might be valid, is that ICG soon will have to handle >> up to three parallel mechanisms for review (one from each >> community within CWG). Maybe we should remind them of the >> potential need to coordinate review mechanisms. >> >> >> >> Staffan >> >> >> >> With best regards >> >> Staffan Jonson >> >> >> >> Mr. Staffan Jonson, Senior Policy Adviser >> >> .SE (The Internet Infrastructure foundation) >> >> >> >> BOX 7399 | SE-103 91 STOCKHOLM | SWEDEN >> >> Direct: +46 8 452 35 74 <tel:%2B46%208%20452%2035%2074> | SMS: +46 73 317 39 67 <tel:%2B46%2073%20317%2039%2067> >> >> staffan.jonson@iis.se <mailto:staffan.jonson@iis.se> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','staffan.jonson@iis.se <mailto:staffan.jonson@iis.se>');> | >> www.iis.se/en <http://www.iis.se/en> <http://www.iis.se/en> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Från:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>');> >> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>');>] >> *För *Martin Boyle >> *Skickat:*den 5 juni 2015 12:01 >> *Till:* Matthew Shears; Milton L Mueller; >> cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>');> >> *Ämne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding >> public comments >> >> >> >> I struggle to imagine why the ICANN Board (any more than the PTI >> Board) would want to initiate an SIFR, in particular without the >> support of the community. Worse, I would feel that there would >> be a "cunning plan" somewhere behind such a decision and that >> leaves me seriously questioning why we would want this process to >> be triggered in such a way. No support for an SIFR, no >> overriding ICANN (or PTI) Board to ignore interests of the community. >> >> If someone can see possible reasons, I'd like to hear them. Then >> any trigger route could be defined (and limited) more carefully. >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>');> >> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>');>] >> *On Behalf Of *Matthew Shears >> *Sent:* 05 June 2015 06:17 >> *To:* Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>');> >> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M >> regarding public comments >> >> >> >> But what would the thresholds be? And, currently an SIFR comes >> as a result of other mechanisms being exhausted as well as the >> IANA probems resolution process. >> >> /The Special IFR would be triggered by a supermajority vote of >> each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal >> procedures for determining supermajority. / >> >> Would we require a supermajority of only the Board, or in >> addition to the ccNSO and GNSO. And as a result of the >> mechanisms being exhausted? I would assume so. >> >> Matthew >> >> On 6/5/2015 4:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> I can't >> >> --MM >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>');> >> [mailto:cwg-stewardship <mailto:cwg-stewardship> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship');>- >> >> bounces@icann.org <mailto:bounces@icann.org> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bounces@icann.org <mailto:bounces@icann.org>');>] On Behalf Of >> Gomes, Chuck >> >> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 5:02 PM >> >> To: avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>');>; >> cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>');> >> >> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M >> regarding public >> >> comments >> >> >> >> Good catch Avri and good question. Can anyone think of a >> reason why the >> >> ICANN Board should not be able to request an SIFR? >> >> >> >> Chuck >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>');> >> [mailto:cwg-stewardship <mailto:cwg-stewardship> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship');>- >> >> bounces@icann.org <mailto:bounces@icann.org> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bounces@icann.org <mailto:bounces@icann.org>');>] On Behalf Of >> Avri Doria >> >> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:39 PM >> >> To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>');> >> >> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M >> regarding public >> >> comments >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I am part of DT-M and partly responsible for this. >> >> >> >> But. It has a cost, which I did mention on the DT-M list: >> >> >> >> There is currently no mechanism defined for the Board to initiate a SIFR. >> >> >> >> Should there be? >> >> >> >> avri >> >> >> >> >> >> On 04-Jun-15 16:10, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >> >> >> >> Here is DT-M's final proposed response to comment >> review tool item # >> >> 246 regarding AFRALO's suggestion that the PTI Board >> be allowed to >> >> initiate a SIFR directly: *"DT M carefully >> considered the >> >> recommendation to allow the PTI Board to initiate a >> Special IFR but >> >> decided against that while at the same time noting >> that the PTI Board >> >> could request that the ICANN Board consider doing >> so."* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If there are any questions, please let me know. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Chuck >> >> >> >> >> >> "This message (including any attachments) >> is intended only >> >> for the use of the individual or entity to >> which it is >> >> addressed, and may contain information that >> is non-public, >> >> proprietary, privileged, confidential and >> exempt from >> >> disclosure under applicable law or may be >> constituted as >> >> attorney work product. If you are not the >> intended >> >> recipient, you are hereby notified that any >> use, >> >> dissemination, distribution, or copying of >> this >> >> communication is strictly prohibited. If >> you have received >> >> this message in error, notify sender >> immediately and delete >> >> this message immediately." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> >> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>');> >> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >> >> >> >> >> --- >> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> >> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>');> >> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Matthew Shears >> >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights >> >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) >> >> + 44 (0)771 247 2987 <tel:%2B%2044%20%280%29771%20247%202987> >> > > -- > Matthew Shears > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & > Technology (CDT) > + 44 (0)771 247 2987 <tel:%2B%2044%20%280%29771%20247%202987> > > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ 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

_______________________________________________ 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

I am inclined not to agree. ICANN control means ICANN control, and I can think of all kinds of reasons why a board concerned with performance might want to initiate an RFP on its own initiative.

-----Original Message-----

I am inclined to agree with this: " I do not think that an RFP should be initiated without an SIFR & SCWG."

Chuck

-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 11:51 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments

Hi,

That is a fascinating question and perhaps a hole in the solution. I do not think that an RFP should be initiated without an SIFR & SCWG. I have no real issue with the Board, or even the members if we have members, initiating a SIFR if they see problems no one else does. Perhaps this is the catch all for the wider community issue that some claim are not included.

But to have them just decide on their own, for commercial or 'profitability' reasons perhaps, without community involvement seems very inappropriate.

avri

On 05-Jun-15 07:53, Matthew Shears wrote:

...

I agree Greg and have similar concerns to Staffan and Martin. But on your second point have we specified how the board would do this:

t/he Board could initiate an RFP or other change to IANA functions operations without a SIFR/

Matthew

On 6/5/2015 12:48 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

...

I see this as a community power. Frankly, the Board could initiate an RFP or other change to IANA functions operations without a SIFR.

Greg

On Friday, June 5, 2015, Staffan Jonson <staffan.jonson@iis.se <mailto:staffan.jonson@iis.se>> wrote:

The rationale for giving ICANN (or PTI) the ability to initiate a SIFR would allude to some general principles of transparency ('everybody should be able to check everybody'). In my view the principles behind is an interesting discussion, but not very much more. The current Hybrid model and contract governance give ICANN a lot of power, the upper hand so to say. So according to proposal ICANN will already control IANA functions operations.

So who would ICANN scrutinize with its review power? Its own supporting organizations? SO:s and AC:s? Most cc:s are not even contracted with ICANN, and have few plans to become. Or would ICANN need to review its own IANA operations with an external organization? The latter would to me indicate lack of control. Or dual representation by MS community.

So a practical answer is: It wouldn't need to. And I see very few possibilities of change in this area.

So my answer is more along a pragmatic stream: Is this relevant for the CWG? Now? Do we really, really need to include this aspect in transition? This late? Are we limiting our deliberations to what is absolutely necessary for the transition, or are we - once the window of ooportunity is open- trying to make it a perfect world? I would say no to both.

Another answer relates to direct process: The need for a review is about accountability, so any power for ICANN to review itself should preferably be discussed by CCWG (WS2).

However what might be valid, is that ICG soon will have to handle up to three parallel mechanisms for review (one from each community within CWG). Maybe we should remind them of the potential need to coordinate review mechanisms.

Staffan

With best regards

Staffan Jonson

Mr. Staffan Jonson, Senior Policy Adviser

.SE (The Internet Infrastructure foundation)

BOX 7399 | SE-103 91 STOCKHOLM | SWEDEN

Direct: +46 8 452 35 74 | SMS: +46 73 317 39 67

staffan.jonson@iis.se <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','staffan.jonson@iis.se');> | www.iis.se/en <http://www.iis.se/en>

*Från:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');>] *För *Martin Boyle *Skickat:*den 5 juni 2015 12:01 *Till:* Matthew Shears; Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> *Ämne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments

I struggle to imagine why the ICANN Board (any more than the PTI Board) would want to initiate an SIFR, in particular without the support of the community. Worse, I would feel that there would be a "cunning plan" somewhere behind such a decision and that leaves me seriously questioning why we would want this process to be triggered in such a way. No support for an SIFR, no overriding ICANN (or PTI) Board to ignore interests of the community.

If someone can see possible reasons, I'd like to hear them. Then any trigger route could be defined (and limited) more carefully.

Martin

*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');>] *On Behalf Of *Matthew Shears *Sent:* 05 June 2015 06:17 *To:* Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments

But what would the thresholds be? And, currently an SIFR comes as a result of other mechanisms being exhausted as well as the IANA probems resolution process.

/The Special IFR would be triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. /

Would we require a supermajority of only the Board, or in addition to the ccNSO and GNSO. And as a result of the mechanisms being exhausted? I would assume so.

Matthew

On 6/5/2015 4:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

I can't

--MM

-----Original Message-----

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship');>-

bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bounces@icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck

Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 5:02 PM

To: avri@acm.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@acm.org');>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');>

Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public

comments

Good catch Avri and good question. Can anyone think of a reason why the

ICANN Board should not be able to request an SIFR?

Chuck

-----Original Message-----

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship');>-

bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bounces@icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria

Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:39 PM

To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');>

Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public

comments

Hi,

I am part of DT-M and partly responsible for this.

But. It has a cost, which I did mention on the DT-M list:

There is currently no mechanism defined for the Board to initiate a SIFR.

Should there be?

avri

On 04-Jun-15 16:10, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

Here is DT-M's final proposed response to comment review tool item #

246 regarding AFRALO's suggestion that the PTI Board be allowed to

initiate a SIFR directly: *"DT M carefully considered the

recommendation to allow the PTI Board to initiate a Special IFR but

decided against that while at the same time noting that the PTI Board

could request that the ICANN Board consider doing so."*

If there are any questions, please let me know.

Chuck

"This message (including any attachments) is intended only

for the use of the individual or entity to which it is

addressed, and may contain information that is non-public,

proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from

disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as

attorney work product. If you are not the intended

recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,

dissemination, distribution, or copying of this

communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received

this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete

this message immediately."

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

---

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

--

Matthew Shears

Global Internet Policy and Human Rights

Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)

+ 44 (0)771 247 2987

-- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987

_______________________________________________ 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ 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 Seun. That is helpful clarification. I would like to note though that under the DT-M recommendations the CSC is not able to initiate an IFR either but rather escalates the problem to the ccNSO and GNSO and the SOs can do that. Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 5:43 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: DT-M (dt6@icann.org); cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments Hi Chuck, I think we should qualify the statement of AFRALO accurately. While it was recommended that PTI board could make such request for an IFR, AFRALO did not suggest that PTI be the initiator but rather CSC. The point therefore is that PTI board would not have any basis to recommend for an IFR if the CSC does not escalate such to it. We should also note that AFRALO statement was made before the CWG determined a certain direction of the nature of PTI board. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. Here is DT-M’s final proposed response to comment review tool item # 246 regarding AFRALO’s suggestion that the PTI Board be allowed to initiate a SIFR directly: “DT M carefully considered the recommendation to allow the PTI Board to initiate a Special IFR but decided against that while at the same time noting that the PTI Board could request that the ICANN Board consider doing so.” If there are any questions, please let me know. Chuck “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship