v1 Final Proposal
Dear CWG-Stewardship, Here attached is the first version of the Final Proposal. My computer crashed in the midst of formatting changes, and I have only been able to recover this version at this time. Substantive changes are all included, but it¹s not as final¹ as I had intended to send you. Open Items for discussion on call Tuesday * PTI Board skill set requirements (paragraph 102) * Need final version of DT-N/X/SR (page 23) * DT-C to provide an updated version of their Charter and annex documents following review of the Public Comment * DT-F to confirm if there are any changes to Section III.A.iii (page 27) * With regard to the replacement of approval function for major architectural and operational changes: the ICANN Board will be responsible for approving changes, but there remains the question of what will commission a working group and deliver the report to the Board? Is this an item for the CSC? * .INT language * Section IV.D. Implementation List * Section VI Staff edits to make * Add Term Sheet as annex * Renumber annexes * Fix glossary to alpha order * Fix numbering and heading formatting Final stretch! Grace
Hi, I'm reading through this, and there is one thing I note repeatedly that nags at me: there continue to be parts of this that suggest the "naming functions" IANA people are transferred to PTI, and the document isn't terribly clear what happens to the other functions. This is not completely consistent throughout the document. For instance, Annex M seems to be imagining a wholesale transfer of IANA operations from one operator to another (but leaves out details of non-naming functions, as is appropriate for the document). I thought the agreement was that the CWG proposal imagines moving all IANA functions to PTI. The other communities can of course continue their agreements with ICANN, which is going to subcontract all the IANA functions to the PTI. The other communities have been clear that they don't see a fundamental conflict here, which by implication means that they do not think there is anything preventing such a subcontract arrangement. I think the proposal needs to be clear that it proposes to move all the IANA functions to PTI, but that it remains mute on the precise details of how that will work for all the non-naming functions. I don't see how we can propose anything else, for if we do we are essentially proposing to break up the IANA functions across two operators. I don't think we actually want to make that proposal, right? Apologies for today's meeting; I have grave doubts that I'll make any of it and I will certainly miss the first hour. Best regards, A On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 10:54:21PM +0000, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear CWG-Stewardship,
Here attached is the first version of the Final Proposal. My computer crashed in the midst of formatting changes, and I have only been able to recover this version at this time. Substantive changes are all included, but it¹s not as final¹ as I had intended to send you.
Open Items for discussion on call Tuesday * PTI Board skill set requirements (paragraph 102) * Need final version of DT-N/X/SR (page 23) * DT-C to provide an updated version of their Charter and annex documents following review of the Public Comment * DT-F to confirm if there are any changes to Section III.A.iii (page 27) * With regard to the replacement of approval function for major architectural and operational changes: the ICANN Board will be responsible for approving changes, but there remains the question of what will commission a working group and deliver the report to the Board? Is this an item for the CSC? * .INT language * Section IV.D. Implementation List * Section VI Staff edits to make * Add Term Sheet as annex * Renumber annexes * Fix glossary to alpha order * Fix numbering and heading formatting
Final stretch! Grace
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
This is a very good catch Andrew and one that I think should be fixed. Your last paragraph sums in up very well in my opinion. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 7:23 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] v1 Final Proposal Hi, I'm reading through this, and there is one thing I note repeatedly that nags at me: there continue to be parts of this that suggest the "naming functions" IANA people are transferred to PTI, and the document isn't terribly clear what happens to the other functions. This is not completely consistent throughout the document. For instance, Annex M seems to be imagining a wholesale transfer of IANA operations from one operator to another (but leaves out details of non-naming functions, as is appropriate for the document). I thought the agreement was that the CWG proposal imagines moving all IANA functions to PTI. The other communities can of course continue their agreements with ICANN, which is going to subcontract all the IANA functions to the PTI. The other communities have been clear that they don't see a fundamental conflict here, which by implication means that they do not think there is anything preventing such a subcontract arrangement. I think the proposal needs to be clear that it proposes to move all the IANA functions to PTI, but that it remains mute on the precise details of how that will work for all the non-naming functions. I don't see how we can propose anything else, for if we do we are essentially proposing to break up the IANA functions across two operators. I don't think we actually want to make that proposal, right? Apologies for today's meeting; I have grave doubts that I'll make any of it and I will certainly miss the first hour. Best regards, A On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 10:54:21PM +0000, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear CWG-Stewardship,
Here attached is the first version of the Final Proposal. My computer crashed in the midst of formatting changes, and I have only been able to recover this version at this time. Substantive changes are all included, but it¹s not as final¹ as I had intended to send you.
Open Items for discussion on call Tuesday * PTI Board skill set requirements (paragraph 102) * Need final version of DT-N/X/SR (page 23) * DT-C to provide an updated version of their Charter and annex documents following review of the Public Comment * DT-F to confirm if there are any changes to Section III.A.iii (page 27) * With regard to the replacement of approval function for major architectural and operational changes: the ICANN Board will be responsible for approving changes, but there remains the question of what will commission a working group and deliver the report to the Board? Is this an item for the CSC? * .INT language * Section IV.D. Implementation List * Section VI Staff edits to make * Add Term Sheet as annex * Renumber annexes * Fix glossary to alpha order * Fix numbering and heading formatting
Final stretch! Grace
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I have an objection to paragraph 102 on PTI board. I thought we had made it clear that a substantial amount of public comment, and virtually ALL civil society groups, had asked for at least a minority of the PTI board to be independent of ICANN. I do not understand why these comments, and the participation of NCSG's representative, were simply disregarded. The description of the model of the PTI board in 102 provides for a maximum of 5 members and proposes 3 ICANN-designated staff members. There is no reason why a simply compromise calling for 2 independent directors could not be honored. What is preventing us, for example, from making the 4th and 5th board members the IETF liaison and the ASO liaison to the ICANN board? --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Monday, June 1, 2015 6:54 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] v1 Final Proposal Dear CWG-Stewardship, Here attached is the first version of the Final Proposal. My computer crashed in the midst of formatting changes, and I have only been able to recover this version at this time. Substantive changes are all included, but it's not as 'final' as I had intended to send you. Open Items for discussion on call Tuesday * PTI Board skill set requirements (paragraph 102) * Need final version of DT-N/X/SR (page 23) * DT-C to provide an updated version of their Charter and annex documents following review of the Public Comment * DT-F to confirm if there are any changes to Section III.A.iii (page 27) * With regard to the replacement of approval function for major architectural and operational changes: the ICANN Board will be responsible for approving changes, but there remains the question of what will commission a working group and deliver the report to the Board? Is this an item for the CSC? * .INT language * Section IV.D. Implementation List * Section VI Staff edits to make * Add Term Sheet as annex * Renumber annexes * Fix glossary to alpha order * Fix numbering and heading formatting Final stretch! -Grace
Just on one narrow issue: On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 02:46:57PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:
not be honored. What is preventing us, for example, from making the 4th and 5th board members the IETF liaison and the ASO liaison to the ICANN board?
Well, one thing preventing us is that this group is not in a position to add to the job description of people appointed by other operational communities. I know that the IETF's liaison is already somewhat taxed. It's a difficult position to fill because it takes a lot of time, and not everyone can volunteer to offer that much time. (The IETF has an expectation that its liaisons are not compensated, so the fact that ICANN offers such compensation doesn't help in this case.) Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
-----Original Message----- Just on one narrow issue:
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 02:46:57PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:
not be honored. What is preventing us, for example, from making the 4th and 5th board members the IETF liaison and the ASO liaison to the ICANN board?
Well, one thing preventing us is that this group is not in a position to add to the job description of people appointed by other operational communities. I know that the IETF's liaison is already somewhat taxed.
Though literally true, that is kind of missing my point. There could be any number of ways of appointing or designating or selecting an independent board member. It doesn't have to be that way. --MM
Milton, FWIW, I see the addition of two independent directors as good practice from a corporate governance point of view. The construct of 3 executives, one of whom is the IANA managing director (or equivalent most senior person) together with two independents seems strong to me and yet remains consistent with the advice we have received. Adding the independence criteria has the additional benefit (I believe) of diluting Chuck's concern relating to having the senior IANA staff member as a director. For now, we may wish to specify that they need to be independent but not insist on the two liaisons you suggest (although these could be provided as an example). Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: 02 June 2015 16:28 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] v1 Final Proposal Just on one narrow issue: On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 02:46:57PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:
not be honored. What is preventing us, for example, from making the 4th and 5th board members the IETF liaison and the ASO liaison to the ICANN board?
Well, one thing preventing us is that this group is not in a position to add to the job description of people appointed by other operational communities. I know that the IETF's liaison is already somewhat taxed. It's a difficult position to fill because it takes a lot of time, and not everyone can volunteer to offer that much time. (The IETF has an expectation that its liaisons are not compensated, so the fact that ICANN offers such compensation doesn't help in this case.) Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-----Original Message-----
For now, we may wish to specify that they need to be independent but not insist on the two liaisons you suggest (although these could be provided as an example).
Good solution. Note that comments from both protocols and numbers communities did _not_ reject the notion of appointing people to the board, but noted it as something they would consider.
+ 1 on the proposed solution On 6/2/2015 5:34 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
-----Original Message-----
For now, we may wish to specify that they need to be independent but not insist on the two liaisons you suggest (although these could be provided as an example).
Good solution. Note that comments from both protocols and numbers communities did _not_ reject the notion of appointing people to the board, but noted it as something they would consider. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list 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
Grace and colleagues working on this. Thank you for a big effort! I have provided some edits and suggestions below and in the attached document which I am passing on to you now ahead of the meeting @ 17h00 UTC today. Jonathan From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: 01 June 2015 23:54 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] v1 Final Proposal Dear CWG-Stewardship, Here attached is the first version of the Final Proposal. My computer crashed in the midst of formatting changes, and I have only been able to recover this version at this time. Substantive changes are all included, but it's not as 'final' as I had intended to send you. Open Items for discussion on call Tuesday * PTI Board skill set requirements (paragraph 102) Propose: That the board skill set is evaluated as a whole not on a per member basis whilst also ensuring that each individual member is suitable to serve as a director of PTI in thir own right. Accordingly, the complete skill set should include a balanced skill set covering an appropriate and complete composite of executive management, operational, technical, financial and corporate governance experience. * Need final version of DT-N/X/SR (page 23) * DT-C to provide an updated version of their Charter and annex documents following review of the Public Comment * DT-F to confirm if there are any changes to Section III.A.iii (page 27) * With regard to the replacement of approval function for major architectural and operational changes: the ICANN Board will be responsible for approving changes, but there remains the question of what will commission a working group and deliver the report to the Board? Is this an item for the CSC? * .INT language * Section IV.D. Implementation List * Section VI Para 110: Since the IFR & the Special IFR are intended to be the same or very similar, only initiated through different process, the wording and concepts in 110 need to be cross-checked with 106-108 for consistency. Ensure additional appropriate and complete language is inserted to cover the conditionality of the proposal related to the work of the CCWG-Accountability. Likely with the help of Sidley. Staff edits to make * Add Term Sheet as annex * Renumber annexes * Fix glossary to alpha order * Fix numbering and heading formatting Final stretch! -Grace
participants (6)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Gomes, Chuck -
Grace Abuhamad -
Jonathan Robinson -
Matthew Shears -
Milton L Mueller