Draft of Principles
Dear All, Here is the revised draft of the Principles with all the comments we have received incorporated. You are welcome to send comments on the list. We will have the final reading at the meeting in Frankfurt. Best regards, Martin Boyle and Lise Fuhr
Hi, I mistakenly sent my reply on the principle on the wrong thread. ( keyed off of the 2B in the name - silly mistake) I am very troubled that we seem to have left the multistakeholder principle off of our set of guiding principles. I know there are some among us that object to the model, but for us to indicate that we have consensus on eliminating that principle seems like a failure to me. I am certainly _not_ part of any consensus that does not include the multistakeholder model among its basic bed rock principles. I unfortunately cannot come to Frankfurt as it was schedule when I had a prior commitment without any consultations with people on the date. I want to be clear that I cannot come to consensus on principles where the multistakeholder model is not central. avri On 14-Nov-14 06:31, Lise Fuhr wrote:
Dear All,
Here is the revised draft of the Principles with all the comments we have received incorporated. You are welcome to send comments on the list. We will have the final reading at the meeting in Frankfurt.
Best regards,
Martin Boyle and Lise Fuhr
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
For ccTLDs, stability and local policy development in accordance with national law is crucial. Diversity (within IETF standards) satisfies user needs. Post transition, nothing must be done by ICANN/IANA to destabilise the operation of legacy ccTLD Registry. ccTLDs need to have the ability to serve their respective communities. Have a good w/end all ..... See you in FRA Best Paul Lise Fuhr wrote:
Dear All,
Here is the revised draft of the Principles with all the comments we have received incorporated. You are welcome to send comments on the list. We will have the final reading at the meeting in Frankfurt.
Best regards,
Martin Boyle and Lise Fuhr
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Paul, I need to comment on the following sentence that you added: "The ccTLD manager's receipt of IANA services is not in any way contingent upon membership in the ccNSO and a ccNSO member can resign at any time and cease to abide by policies developed by the ccNSO." I want to be careful about treading into ccTLD space because that is not my area of expertise but I have concerns about the last part of your sentence. I think I am fine with the first two parts but not with " cease to abide by policies developed by the ccNSO". Here are my concerns: 1. The ccNSO is the policy making body for ccTLDs and my understanding is that their processes are open to all, not just members of the ccNSO, so whether a ccTLD is a member of the ccNSO or not, I think it is incumbent on them to participate in the policy development process; if they don't participate, then I don't think they have much ground for disagreeing with any policies that reach consensus level of support except in cases where their local laws might prevent them from doing so. 2. I believe there needs to be some ccTLD policy making body; until a better alternative is agreed to besides the ccNSO, it is what we have right now and as long as participation in the ccTLD PDP does not require ccNSO membership and non-member ccTLDs are welcome to participate, then that process should be used. 3. Security, stability and resiliency must be ensured for DNS names, otherwise all TLDs will be harmed. That means that policies must be established to make sure that happens. Giving any TLD (cc or g) the right to 'cease to abide by policies developed' by the applicable policy making body could in effect create security, stability or resiliency problems for everyone on the Internet. An example in point is the PDP that the ccNSO had for IDN ccTLDs. Do you think that ccTLDs should be able to refuse to abide by that policy? 4. I think it is important to recognize that the ccNSO is the policy making body for ccTLDs but they do not in fact establish policies, the ICANN Board does. (The same of course is true for gTLDs and the GNSO.) At a minimum, I think your suggested wording needs some qualifications added. But I will let all of you in the ccTLD world work this out. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 4:47 AM To: Lise Fuhr Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft of Principles For ccTLDs, stability and local policy development in accordance with national law is crucial. Diversity (within IETF standards) satisfies user needs. Post transition, nothing must be done by ICANN/IANA to destabilise the operation of legacy ccTLD Registry. ccTLDs need to have the ability to serve their respective communities. Have a good w/end all ..... See you in FRA Best Paul Lise Fuhr wrote:
Dear All,
Here is the revised draft of the Principles with all the comments we have received incorporated. You are welcome to send comments on the list. We will have the final reading at the meeting in Frankfurt.
Best regards,
Martin Boyle and Lise Fuhr
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Chuck, Interesting observations you havemore comments in line. On 2014/11/15 4:39 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Paul,
I need to comment on the following sentence that you added: "The ccTLD manager's receipt of IANA services is not in any way contingent upon membership in the ccNSO and a ccNSO member can resign at any time and cease to abide by policies developed by the ccNSO." I want to be careful about treading into ccTLD space because that is not my area of expertise but I have concerns about the last part of your sentence. I think I am fine with the first two parts but not with " cease to abide by policies developed by the ccNSO". Here are my concerns:
1. The ccNSO is the policy making body for ccTLDs and my understanding is that their processes are open to all, not just members of the ccNSO, so whether a ccTLD is a member of the ccNSO or not, I think it is incumbent on them to participate in the policy development process; if they don't participate, then I don't think they have much ground for disagreeing with any policies that reach consensus level of support except in cases where their local laws might prevent them from doing so.
This is correct, indeedjust as some ccTLDs that are not ccNSO members are very active within ICANN and participate in ccNSO policy processes without being required to be ccNSO members.
2. I believe there needs to be some ccTLD policy making body; until a better alternative is agreed to besides the ccNSO, it is what we have right now and as long as participation in the ccTLD PDP does not require ccNSO membership and non-member ccTLDs are welcome to participate, then that process should be used.
Agreed. Of course the independence of ccTLDs (because they serve specific countries) tends to complicates ccTLD participation within ICANN because some ccTLDs may not be willing to be ccNSO members, but the key point here is that no ccTLD is required to be a ccNSO member for it to participate in ICANN processes.
3. Security, stability and resiliency must be ensured for DNS names, otherwise all TLDs will be harmed. That means that policies must be established to make sure that happens. Giving any TLD (cc or g) the right to 'cease to abide by policies developed' by the applicable policy making body could in effect create security, stability or resiliency problems for everyone on the Internet. An example in point is the PDP that the ccNSO had for IDN ccTLDs. Do you think that ccTLDs should be able to refuse to abide by that policy?
I don't know if this is documented anywhere in ICANN's policies or any policy pre-dating ICANN about the responsibility of ccTLD managers in relation to the DNS as a whole, but I know very well that it is a well accepted practice and norm among ccTLDs that the prevalence of national laws does not give ccTLDs any right to do something that may compromise the DNS as a whole. Accordingly, whether or not a ccTLD is a ccNSO member or participates in ICANN processes, the ccTLD still has a fiduciary responsibility of complying with ICANN policies that promote & support the stability, security and resiliency of the DNS.
4. I think it is important to recognize that the ccNSO is the policy making body for ccTLDs but they do not in fact establish policies, the ICANN Board does. (The same of course is true for gTLDs and the GNSO.)
At a minimum, I think your suggested wording needs some qualifications added. But I will let all of you in the ccTLD world work this out.
Yes, we're currently working on the feedback we recently received from +110 ccTLDs through the ccTLD survey that we ran with the regional TLD organisations in the last 2 weeks. We should be able to present clearer views of what ccTLDs in general require from the IANA transition process. Regards, Vika
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 4:47 AM To: Lise Fuhr Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft of Principles
For ccTLDs, stability and local policy development in accordance with national law is crucial. Diversity (within IETF standards) satisfies user needs.
Post transition, nothing must be done by ICANN/IANA to destabilise the operation of legacy ccTLD Registry.
ccTLDs need to have the ability to serve their respective communities.
Have a good w/end all .....
See you in FRA
Best
Paul
Lise Fuhr wrote:
Dear All,
Here is the revised draft of the Principles with all the comments we have received incorporated. You are welcome to send comments on the list. We will have the final reading at the meeting in Frankfurt.
Best regards,
Martin Boyle and Lise Fuhr
_______________________________________________ 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 Chuck, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Paul,
I need to comment on the following sentence that you added: "The ccTLD manager's receipt of IANA services is not in any way contingent upon membership in the ccNSO and a ccNSO member can resign at any time and cease to abide by policies developed by the ccNSO." I want to be careful about treading into ccTLD space because that is not my area of expertise but I have concerns about the last part of your sentence. I think I am fine with the first two parts but not with " cease to abide by policies developed by the ccNSO".
The above is COPIED from the ICANN Bylaws..... https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en#IX (section 4 subsection 2) Note - the ccNSO fulfils a useful purpose for those that participate - just that is is not_the_ Policy development forum for ALL ccTLD Registries. We need to be careful to respect the diversity that exists amongst ccTLDs, almost all ccTLD have local Policy development processes that are approved by the Registry's Board of Directors and such good corporate governance practice must be respected. Rest assured that ccTLDs follow the Technical Standards that are published by the IETF to ensure global interability and Registration Policy for ccTLD is published by each ccTLD registry in accordance with their procedures.
Here are my concerns:
...... I think it is incumbent on them to participate in the policy development process; if they don't participate, then I don't think they have much ground for disagreeing with any policies that reach consensus level of support except in cases where their local laws might prevent them from doing so.
Just because an employee participates at a meeting (wherever that meeting is held) does not bind their employer / company as formally adopted business practice - unless the Board has explicitly agreed to it. Consequently, as a matter of good corporate governance, specific business practices can only be mandated by a Registry's Board of Directors by passing a resolution to adopt a specific set of rules that impact the operation of that company. Kind regards Paul
participants (5)
-
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Lise Fuhr -
Paul M Kane -
Vika Mpisane