Dear all, Following last week's call, I have discussed outstanding issues with those parties who had raised concerns about different parts of the text. I am grateful to them for their understanding and willingness to look for solutions and I am pleased to note that we have a near consensus document in the attached. There have been a number of small edits made in response to Andrew Sullivan's comments seeking to clarify the wording. These are in the heading and paragraphs 4, 5.iv & the second sentence of paragraph 7.ii. On the more difficult issues: * Seun has agreed to a revised (and simpler) text for footnote 1 (paragraph 5.2): "The term IANA functions operator refers to the entity that provides the service." This replaces the text proposed for the 12 March call, "The term IANA functions operator refers to the entity that provides the service, independent of the organisation that hosts it, currently ICANN." * Mary has agreed to drop her proposal in paragraph 10, to replace "must" by "should". This returns us to the original text of, "Multistakeholderism: any proposal must foster multi-stakeholder participation in the future oversight of the IANA functions." The outstanding point is on the first sentence of paragraph 7.ii. Elise Lindeberg has consulted within the GAC and proposed the text included in this current draft. Milton Mueller and Andrew Sullivan have both accepted this wording, but Paul Kane has rejected it. He has been invited to consider an alternative that he could work with. I'm afraid I will be a little late joining the call on Tuesday, but I hope we will be able to use the call to finalise the text. Martin
Martin, Congratulations on getting us close to done on the Principles. As I read footnote 1, it is now clear that "IANA Functions Operator" refers to the entire entity that provides the service (currently ICANN) and not to any smaller unit within the entity. I will look forward to hearing about the issues on 7.ii, and particularly what is wrong with respecting national laws, processes and decisions (or what caveats need to be applied to that to protect certain interests within the cc community). Greg On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:
Dear all,
Following last week’s call, I have discussed outstanding issues with those parties who had raised concerns about different parts of the text. I am grateful to them for their understanding and willingness to look for solutions and I am pleased to note that we have a near consensus document in the attached.
There have been a number of small edits made in response to Andrew Sullivan’s comments seeking to clarify the wording. These are in the heading and paragraphs 4, 5.iv & the second sentence of paragraph 7.ii.
On the more difficult issues:
· Seun has agreed to a revised (and simpler) text for footnote 1 (paragraph 5.2): “The term IANA functions operator refers to the entity that provides the service.” This replaces the text proposed for the 12 March call, “The term IANA functions operator refers to the entity that provides the service, independent of the organisation that hosts it, currently ICANN.”
· Mary has agreed to drop her proposal in paragraph 10, to replace “must” by “should”. This returns us to the original text of, “Multistakeholderism: any proposal must foster multi-stakeholder participation in the future oversight of the IANA functions.”
The outstanding point is on the first sentence of paragraph 7.ii. Elise Lindeberg has consulted within the GAC and proposed the text included in this current draft. Milton Mueller and Andrew Sullivan have both accepted this wording, but Paul Kane has rejected it. He has been invited to consider an alternative that he could work with.
I’m afraid I will be a little late joining the call on Tuesday, but I hope we will be able to use the call to finalise the text.
Martin
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Thanks Greg. I guess the footnote could be read as implying the IANA functions operator is the whole organisation, although in that case I personally would have gone for the word organisation. The terminology, “IANA functions operator” has to cope with the concept that it is a small team in a big organisation (currently as a team in the Global Domains Division of ICANN) through to it being structurally separated to an entity as yet unknown but which might be entirely independent of any other body – say Trotters Independent Traders (New York, Paris, Peckham). Hence the choice of the word “entity.” However, interpreting the IANA functions operator as ICANN does not make sense when read in 9.i: “To separate ICANN from the current operator (i.e. ICANN) if warranted and in line with agreed processes” does not make sense. “To separate the IANA Functions from the current operator (i.e. ICANN) if warranted and in line with agreed processes” does. I am not a lawyer (and am quite content with my innocence) and this is not a legal document, but something to help us think about what we want from the transition. Turning to your other point: there might be ccTLDs that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the country or territory they serve. (For example, some countries are really small and isolated and could not establish a registry on their mainland.) So the question might be, whose national laws, processes and decisions? The problem is that one size does not fit all, and any formulation is likely to fall foul of an exception. Perhaps we’ll find the elusive magic wording this evening! But as you say, we really can’t be that far away if everyone continues to show good will in working to the right wording for everyone. Martin From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: 16 March 2015 23:02 To: Martin Boyle Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles Document Martin, Congratulations on getting us close to done on the Principles. As I read footnote 1, it is now clear that "IANA Functions Operator" refers to the entire entity that provides the service (currently ICANN) and not to any smaller unit within the entity. I will look forward to hearing about the issues on 7.ii, and particularly what is wrong with respecting national laws, processes and decisions (or what caveats need to be applied to that to protect certain interests within the cc community). Greg On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>> wrote: Dear all, Following last week’s call, I have discussed outstanding issues with those parties who had raised concerns about different parts of the text. I am grateful to them for their understanding and willingness to look for solutions and I am pleased to note that we have a near consensus document in the attached. There have been a number of small edits made in response to Andrew Sullivan’s comments seeking to clarify the wording. These are in the heading and paragraphs 4, 5.iv & the second sentence of paragraph 7.ii. On the more difficult issues: • Seun has agreed to a revised (and simpler) text for footnote 1 (paragraph 5.2): “The term IANA functions operator refers to the entity that provides the service.” This replaces the text proposed for the 12 March call, “The term IANA functions operator refers to the entity that provides the service, independent of the organisation that hosts it, currently ICANN.” • Mary has agreed to drop her proposal in paragraph 10, to replace “must” by “should”. This returns us to the original text of, “Multistakeholderism: any proposal must foster multi-stakeholder participation in the future oversight of the IANA functions.” The outstanding point is on the first sentence of paragraph 7.ii. Elise Lindeberg has consulted within the GAC and proposed the text included in this current draft. Milton Mueller and Andrew Sullivan have both accepted this wording, but Paul Kane has rejected it. He has been invited to consider an alternative that he could work with. I’m afraid I will be a little late joining the call on Tuesday, but I hope we will be able to use the call to finalise the text. Martin _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Martin and Greg I think Martin is correct here and I hope people are not using this terminological debate as a proxy war for internal vs. external. The principle of separability is well established and accepted, so as Martin suggests it makes no sense to describe the IANA functions operator in a way that identifies it with ICANN in our descriptions. --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle The terminology, “IANA functions operator” has to cope with the concept that it is a small team in a big organisation (currently as a team in the Global Domains Division of ICANN) through to it being structurally separated to an entity as yet unknown but which might be entirely independent of any other body – say Trotters Independent Traders (New York, Paris, Peckham). Hence the choice of the word “entity.” However, interpreting the IANA functions operator as ICANN does not make sense when read in 9.i: “To separate ICANN from the current operator (i.e. ICANN) if warranted and in line with agreed processes” does not make sense. “To separate the IANA Functions from the current operator (i.e. ICANN) if warranted and in line with agreed processes” does.
+1 to Martins phraseology. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 4:12 PM To: 'Martin Boyle'; 'Greg Shatan' Cc: 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles Document Martin and Greg I think Martin is correct here and I hope people are not using this terminological debate as a proxy war for internal vs. external. The principle of separability is well established and accepted, so as Martin suggests it makes no sense to describe the IANA functions operator in a way that identifies it with ICANN in our descriptions. --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle The terminology, “IANA functions operator” has to cope with the concept that it is a small team in a big organisation (currently as a team in the Global Domains Division of ICANN) through to it being structurally separated to an entity as yet unknown but which might be entirely independent of any other body – say Trotters Independent Traders (New York, Paris, Peckham). Hence the choice of the word “entity.” However, interpreting the IANA functions operator as ICANN does not make sense when read in 9.i: “To separate ICANN from the current operator (i.e. ICANN) if warranted and in line with agreed processes” does not make sense. “To separate the IANA Functions from the current operator (i.e. ICANN) if warranted and in line with agreed processes” does.
This is not complicated, nor is it a proxy war for anything. This has nothing to do with separability. I'm merely trying to parse out the generic term or terms My point is this. There are two groups one can identify with the provision of the IANA Functions: 1. The team of people that perform the service (currently a group of people under Elise Gerich; sometimes referred to as the "IANA Root Zone Management staff" for clarity (see https://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation)) 2. The entity that houses (1), along with a lot of other people and stuff (currently, ICANN). I am perfectly happy for "IANA Functions Operator" to refer to Group (1) and not Group (2). If that's the case, I would not use the term "entity" in the footnote, which now reads "The term IANA functions operator refers to the entity that provides the service." I believe the term "entity" is confusing. The IANA Root Zone Management staff is not an entity. ICANN is an entity, but then you are bringing Group (2) into the definition. The IANA Functions Operator could be an entity in the future, but it is not now an entity. Hence, my confusion. I suggest modifying the footnote as follows, for clarity: "The term "IANA Functions Operator" means the group that performs the service." If "group" isn't quite right, perhaps "unit"? If that is the case, do we need a generic term for Group (2)? Maybe we don't, at least not in the Principles document. If we don't, I suggest one change below to avoid ambiguity. In 7(ii) and 8(iii), where the term ICANN is used, it is clearly not referring to ICANN as the IANA Functions Operator, but to ICANN as the policy-making and contracting body. Things get muddy in Section 9(i), which says "To separate the IANA Functions from the current operator (i.e. ICANN) if warranted and in line with agreed processes." In order to avoid ambiguity i would suggest modifying 9(i) to state: "To separate the IANA Functions from the current operator (i.e. ICANN (as the IANA Functions Operator)) if warranted and in line with agreed processes" Greg Greg On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Martin and Greg
I think Martin is correct here and I hope people are not using this terminological debate as a proxy war for internal vs. external.
The principle of separability is well established and accepted, so as Martin suggests it makes no sense to describe the IANA functions operator in a way that identifies it with ICANN in our descriptions.
--MM
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Martin Boyle
The terminology, “IANA functions operator” has to cope with the concept that it is a small team in a big organisation (currently as a team in the Global Domains Division of ICANN) through to it being structurally separated to an entity as yet unknown but which might be entirely independent of any other body – say *Trotters Independent Traders (New York, Paris, Peckham)*. Hence the choice of the word “entity.”
However, interpreting the IANA functions operator as ICANN does not make sense when read in 9.i: “To separate ICANN from the current operator (i.e. ICANN) if warranted and in line with agreed processes” does not make sense. “To separate the IANA Functions from the current operator (i.e. ICANN) if warranted and in line with agreed processes” does.
Martin, I've more or less responded to your first point elsewhere, and won't beat a dead horse. I think we've agreed to change "group" to "unit" but otherwise to accept the footnote as is, though Seun disagrees. On the second point, I expected that this was the issue, but I'm glad to see it succinctly and explicitly expressed. Greg On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:
Thanks Greg.
I guess the footnote could be read as implying the IANA functions operator is the whole organisation, although in that case I personally would have gone for the word organisation. The terminology, “IANA functions operator” has to cope with the concept that it is a small team in a big organisation (currently as a team in the Global Domains Division of ICANN) through to it being structurally separated to an entity as yet unknown but which might be entirely independent of any other body – say * Trotters Independent Traders (New York, Paris, Peckham)*. Hence the choice of the word “entity.”
However, interpreting the IANA functions operator as ICANN does not make sense when read in 9.i: “To separate ICANN from the current operator (i.e. ICANN) if warranted and in line with agreed processes” does not make sense. “To separate the IANA Functions from the current operator (i.e. ICANN) if warranted and in line with agreed processes” does.
I am not a lawyer (and am quite content with my innocence) and this is not a legal document, but something to help us think about what we want from the transition.
Turning to your other point: there might be ccTLDs that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the country or territory they serve. (For example, some countries are really small and isolated and could not establish a registry on their mainland.) So the question might be, whose national laws, processes and decisions? The problem is that one size does not fit all, and any formulation is likely to fall foul of an exception. Perhaps we’ll find the elusive magic wording this evening! But as you say, we really can’t be that far away if everyone continues to show good will in working to the right wording for everyone.
Martin
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* 16 March 2015 23:02 *To:* Martin Boyle *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles Document
Martin,
Congratulations on getting us close to done on the Principles.
As I read footnote 1, it is now clear that "IANA Functions Operator" refers to the entire entity that provides the service (currently ICANN) and not to any smaller unit within the entity.
I will look forward to hearing about the issues on 7.ii, and particularly what is wrong with respecting national laws, processes and decisions (or what caveats need to be applied to that to protect certain interests within the cc community).
Greg
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:
Dear all,
Following last week’s call, I have discussed outstanding issues with those parties who had raised concerns about different parts of the text. I am grateful to them for their understanding and willingness to look for solutions and I am pleased to note that we have a near consensus document in the attached.
There have been a number of small edits made in response to Andrew Sullivan’s comments seeking to clarify the wording. These are in the heading and paragraphs 4, 5.iv & the second sentence of paragraph 7.ii.
On the more difficult issues:
· Seun has agreed to a revised (and simpler) text for footnote 1 (paragraph 5.2): “The term IANA functions operator refers to the entity that provides the service.” This replaces the text proposed for the 12 March call, “The term IANA functions operator refers to the entity that provides the service, independent of the organisation that hosts it, currently ICANN.”
· Mary has agreed to drop her proposal in paragraph 10, to replace “must” by “should”. This returns us to the original text of, “Multistakeholderism: any proposal must foster multi-stakeholder participation in the future oversight of the IANA functions.”
The outstanding point is on the first sentence of paragraph 7.ii. Elise Lindeberg has consulted within the GAC and proposed the text included in this current draft. Milton Mueller and Andrew Sullivan have both accepted this wording, but Paul Kane has rejected it. He has been invited to consider an alternative that he could work with.
I’m afraid I will be a little late joining the call on Tuesday, but I hope we will be able to use the call to finalise the text.
Martin
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I’d be ok with either group of unit if people find entity confusing. While not a fan of getting my definitions from Wikipedia I note that it is “An entity is something that exists in itself, actually or potentially, concretely or abstractly, physically or not. It need not be of material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities.” I would see “unit” as confusing and “group” likewise, but the important idea is that “[whatever we call] performs the service.” So could anyone who objects to “The term "IANA Functions Operator" means the unit that performs the service.” Martin From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: 17 March 2015 17:44 To: Martin Boyle Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles Document Martin, I've more or less responded to your first point elsewhere, and won't beat a dead horse. I think we've agreed to change "group" to "unit" but otherwise to accept the footnote as is, though Seun disagrees. On the second point, I expected that this was the issue, but I'm glad to see it succinctly and explicitly expressed. Greg On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>> wrote: Thanks Greg. I guess the footnote could be read as implying the IANA functions operator is the whole organisation, although in that case I personally would have gone for the word organisation. The terminology, “IANA functions operator” has to cope with the concept that it is a small team in a big organisation (currently as a team in the Global Domains Division of ICANN) through to it being structurally separated to an entity as yet unknown but which might be entirely independent of any other body – say Trotters Independent Traders (New York, Paris, Peckham). Hence the choice of the word “entity.” However, interpreting the IANA functions operator as ICANN does not make sense when read in 9.i: “To separate ICANN from the current operator (i.e. ICANN) if warranted and in line with agreed processes” does not make sense. “To separate the IANA Functions from the current operator (i.e. ICANN) if warranted and in line with agreed processes” does. I am not a lawyer (and am quite content with my innocence) and this is not a legal document, but something to help us think about what we want from the transition. Turning to your other point: there might be ccTLDs that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the country or territory they serve. (For example, some countries are really small and isolated and could not establish a registry on their mainland.) So the question might be, whose national laws, processes and decisions? The problem is that one size does not fit all, and any formulation is likely to fall foul of an exception. Perhaps we’ll find the elusive magic wording this evening! But as you say, we really can’t be that far away if everyone continues to show good will in working to the right wording for everyone. Martin From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: 16 March 2015 23:02 To: Martin Boyle Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles Document Martin, Congratulations on getting us close to done on the Principles. As I read footnote 1, it is now clear that "IANA Functions Operator" refers to the entire entity that provides the service (currently ICANN) and not to any smaller unit within the entity. I will look forward to hearing about the issues on 7.ii, and particularly what is wrong with respecting national laws, processes and decisions (or what caveats need to be applied to that to protect certain interests within the cc community). Greg On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>> wrote: Dear all, Following last week’s call, I have discussed outstanding issues with those parties who had raised concerns about different parts of the text. I am grateful to them for their understanding and willingness to look for solutions and I am pleased to note that we have a near consensus document in the attached. There have been a number of small edits made in response to Andrew Sullivan’s comments seeking to clarify the wording. These are in the heading and paragraphs 4, 5.iv & the second sentence of paragraph 7.ii. On the more difficult issues: • Seun has agreed to a revised (and simpler) text for footnote 1 (paragraph 5.2): “The term IANA functions operator refers to the entity that provides the service.” This replaces the text proposed for the 12 March call, “The term IANA functions operator refers to the entity that provides the service, independent of the organisation that hosts it, currently ICANN.” • Mary has agreed to drop her proposal in paragraph 10, to replace “must” by “should”. This returns us to the original text of, “Multistakeholderism: any proposal must foster multi-stakeholder participation in the future oversight of the IANA functions.” The outstanding point is on the first sentence of paragraph 7.ii. Elise Lindeberg has consulted within the GAC and proposed the text included in this current draft. Milton Mueller and Andrew Sullivan have both accepted this wording, but Paul Kane has rejected it. He has been invited to consider an alternative that he could work with. I’m afraid I will be a little late joining the call on Tuesday, but I hope we will be able to use the call to finalise the text. Martin _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
What about using "group of people" instead of just "group" or entity. -ed Please pardon any errors. I am sending this from my IPhone and have big fingers.
On Mar 17, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:
I’d be ok with either group of unit if people find entity confusing. While not a fan of getting my definitions from Wikipedia I note that it is “An entity is something that exists in itself, actually or potentially, concretely or abstractly, physically or not. It need not be of material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities.” I would see “unit” as confusing and “group” likewise, but the important idea is that “[whatever we call] performs the service.”
So could anyone who objects to “The term "IANA Functions Operator" means the unit that performs the service.”
Martin
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: 17 March 2015 17:44 To: Martin Boyle Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles Document
Martin,
I've more or less responded to your first point elsewhere, and won't beat a dead horse. I think we've agreed to change "group" to "unit" but otherwise to accept the footnote as is, though Seun disagrees.
On the second point, I expected that this was the issue, but I'm glad to see it succinctly and explicitly expressed.
Greg
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote: Thanks Greg.
I guess the footnote could be read as implying the IANA functions operator is the whole organisation, although in that case I personally would have gone for the word organisation. The terminology, “IANA functions operator” has to cope with the concept that it is a small team in a big organisation (currently as a team in the Global Domains Division of ICANN) through to it being structurally separated to an entity as yet unknown but which might be entirely independent of any other body – say Trotters Independent Traders (New York, Paris, Peckham). Hence the choice of the word “entity.”
However, interpreting the IANA functions operator as ICANN does not make sense when read in 9.i: “To separate ICANN from the current operator (i.e. ICANN) if warranted and in line with agreed processes” does not make sense. “To separate the IANA Functions from the current operator (i.e. ICANN) if warranted and in line with agreed processes” does.
I am not a lawyer (and am quite content with my innocence) and this is not a legal document, but something to help us think about what we want from the transition.
Turning to your other point: there might be ccTLDs that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the country or territory they serve. (For example, some countries are really small and isolated and could not establish a registry on their mainland.) So the question might be, whose national laws, processes and decisions? The problem is that one size does not fit all, and any formulation is likely to fall foul of an exception. Perhaps we’ll find the elusive magic wording this evening! But as you say, we really can’t be that far away if everyone continues to show good will in working to the right wording for everyone.
Martin
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: 16 March 2015 23:02 To: Martin Boyle Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles Document
Martin,
Congratulations on getting us close to done on the Principles.
As I read footnote 1, it is now clear that "IANA Functions Operator" refers to the entire entity that provides the service (currently ICANN) and not to any smaller unit within the entity.
I will look forward to hearing about the issues on 7.ii, and particularly what is wrong with respecting national laws, processes and decisions (or what caveats need to be applied to that to protect certain interests within the cc community).
Greg
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote: Dear all,
Following last week’s call, I have discussed outstanding issues with those parties who had raised concerns about different parts of the text. I am grateful to them for their understanding and willingness to look for solutions and I am pleased to note that we have a near consensus document in the attached.
There have been a number of small edits made in response to Andrew Sullivan’s comments seeking to clarify the wording. These are in the heading and paragraphs 4, 5.iv & the second sentence of paragraph 7.ii.
On the more difficult issues: · Seun has agreed to a revised (and simpler) text for footnote 1 (paragraph 5.2): “The term IANA functions operator refers to the entity that provides the service.” This replaces the text proposed for the 12 March call, “The term IANA functions operator refers to the entity that provides the service, independent of the organisation that hosts it, currently ICANN.”
· Mary has agreed to drop her proposal in paragraph 10, to replace “must” by “should”. This returns us to the original text of, “Multistakeholderism: any proposal must foster multi-stakeholder participation in the future oversight of the IANA functions.”
The outstanding point is on the first sentence of paragraph 7.ii. Elise Lindeberg has consulted within the GAC and proposed the text included in this current draft. Milton Mueller and Andrew Sullivan have both accepted this wording, but Paul Kane has rejected it. He has been invited to consider an alternative that he could work with.
I’m afraid I will be a little late joining the call on Tuesday, but I hope we will be able to use the call to finalise the text.
Martin
_______________________________________________ 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
Some other alternatives: team, IANA team, IANA staff. I am fairly comfortable with most options; just trying to help find common ground. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Eduardo Diaz, PE Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 5:56 PM To: Martin Boyle Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles Document What about using "group of people" instead of just "group" or entity. -ed Please pardon any errors. I am sending this from my IPhone and have big fingers. On Mar 17, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>> wrote: I’d be ok with either group of unit if people find entity confusing. While not a fan of getting my definitions from Wikipedia I note that it is “An entity is something that exists in itself, actually or potentially, concretely or abstractly, physically or not. It need not be of material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities.” I would see “unit” as confusing and “group” likewise, but the important idea is that “[whatever we call] performs the service.” So could anyone who objects to “The term "IANA Functions Operator" means the unit that performs the service.” Martin From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: 17 March 2015 17:44 To: Martin Boyle Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles Document Martin, I've more or less responded to your first point elsewhere, and won't beat a dead horse. I think we've agreed to change "group" to "unit" but otherwise to accept the footnote as is, though Seun disagrees. On the second point, I expected that this was the issue, but I'm glad to see it succinctly and explicitly expressed. Greg On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>> wrote: Thanks Greg. I guess the footnote could be read as implying the IANA functions operator is the whole organisation, although in that case I personally would have gone for the word organisation. The terminology, “IANA functions operator” has to cope with the concept that it is a small team in a big organisation (currently as a team in the Global Domains Division of ICANN) through to it being structurally separated to an entity as yet unknown but which might be entirely independent of any other body – say Trotters Independent Traders (New York, Paris, Peckham). Hence the choice of the word “entity.” However, interpreting the IANA functions operator as ICANN does not make sense when read in 9.i: “To separate ICANN from the current operator (i.e. ICANN) if warranted and in line with agreed processes” does not make sense. “To separate the IANA Functions from the current operator (i.e. ICANN) if warranted and in line with agreed processes” does. I am not a lawyer (and am quite content with my innocence) and this is not a legal document, but something to help us think about what we want from the transition. Turning to your other point: there might be ccTLDs that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the country or territory they serve. (For example, some countries are really small and isolated and could not establish a registry on their mainland.) So the question might be, whose national laws, processes and decisions? The problem is that one size does not fit all, and any formulation is likely to fall foul of an exception. Perhaps we’ll find the elusive magic wording this evening! But as you say, we really can’t be that far away if everyone continues to show good will in working to the right wording for everyone. Martin From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: 16 March 2015 23:02 To: Martin Boyle Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles Document Martin, Congratulations on getting us close to done on the Principles. As I read footnote 1, it is now clear that "IANA Functions Operator" refers to the entire entity that provides the service (currently ICANN) and not to any smaller unit within the entity. I will look forward to hearing about the issues on 7.ii, and particularly what is wrong with respecting national laws, processes and decisions (or what caveats need to be applied to that to protect certain interests within the cc community). Greg On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>> wrote: Dear all, Following last week’s call, I have discussed outstanding issues with those parties who had raised concerns about different parts of the text. I am grateful to them for their understanding and willingness to look for solutions and I am pleased to note that we have a near consensus document in the attached. There have been a number of small edits made in response to Andrew Sullivan’s comments seeking to clarify the wording. These are in the heading and paragraphs 4, 5.iv & the second sentence of paragraph 7.ii. On the more difficult issues: • Seun has agreed to a revised (and simpler) text for footnote 1 (paragraph 5.2): “The term IANA functions operator refers to the entity that provides the service.” This replaces the text proposed for the 12 March call, “The term IANA functions operator refers to the entity that provides the service, independent of the organisation that hosts it, currently ICANN.” • Mary has agreed to drop her proposal in paragraph 10, to replace “must” by “should”. This returns us to the original text of, “Multistakeholderism: any proposal must foster multi-stakeholder participation in the future oversight of the IANA functions.” The outstanding point is on the first sentence of paragraph 7.ii. Elise Lindeberg has consulted within the GAC and proposed the text included in this current draft. Milton Mueller and Andrew Sullivan have both accepted this wording, but Paul Kane has rejected it. He has been invited to consider an alternative that he could work with. I’m afraid I will be a little late joining the call on Tuesday, but I hope we will be able to use the call to finalise the text. Martin _______________________________________________ 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
Dear Martin: I hesitate to add to this rather odd discussion, but since we are here: - the IANA staff are - we are told - separated from the rest of ICANN. Thus it is a finite, identifiable number of people. - Consequently, 'group' is too vague and open a concept in this case. - 'Unit' is acceptable. Surprisingly, the contents of an unit may be plural, but always finite. e.g. the divisions of a Directorate in the EC are 'Units'. - I have no objection to 'entity' because I afford it a broader meaning than others do. Enjoy! CW On 17 Mar 2015, at 22:55, "Eduardo Diaz, PE" <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:
What about using "group of people" instead of just "group" or entity.
-ed
Please pardon any errors. I am sending this from my IPhone and have big fingers.
On Mar 17, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:
I’d be ok with either group of unit if people find entity confusing. While not a fan of getting my definitions from Wikipedia I note that it is “An entity is something that exists in itself, actually or potentially, concretely or abstractly, physically or not. It need not be of material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities.” I would see “unit” as confusing and “group” likewise, but the important idea is that “[whatever we call] performs the service.”
So could anyone who objects to “The term "IANA Functions Operator" means the unit that performs the service.”
Martin
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: 17 March 2015 17:44 To: Martin Boyle Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles Document
Martin,
I've more or less responded to your first point elsewhere, and won't beat a dead horse. I think we've agreed to change "group" to "unit" but otherwise to accept the footnote as is, though Seun disagrees.
On the second point, I expected that this was the issue, but I'm glad to see it succinctly and explicitly expressed.
Greg
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote: Thanks Greg.
I guess the footnote could be read as implying the IANA functions operator is the whole organisation, although in that case I personally would have gone for the word organisation. The terminology, “IANA functions operator” has to cope with the concept that it is a small team in a big organisation (currently as a team in the Global Domains Division of ICANN) through to it being structurally separated to an entity as yet unknown but which might be entirely independent of any other body – say Trotters Independent Traders (New York, Paris, Peckham). Hence the choice of the word “entity.”
However, interpreting the IANA functions operator as ICANN does not make sense when read in 9.i: “To separate ICANN from the current operator (i.e. ICANN) if warranted and in line with agreed processes” does not make sense. “To separate the IANA Functions from the current operator (i.e. ICANN) if warranted and in line with agreed processes” does.
I am not a lawyer (and am quite content with my innocence) and this is not a legal document, but something to help us think about what we want from the transition.
Turning to your other point: there might be ccTLDs that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the country or territory they serve. (For example, some countries are really small and isolated and could not establish a registry on their mainland.) So the question might be, whose national laws, processes and decisions? The problem is that one size does not fit all, and any formulation is likely to fall foul of an exception. Perhaps we’ll find the elusive magic wording this evening! But as you say, we really can’t be that far away if everyone continues to show good will in working to the right wording for everyone.
Martin
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: 16 March 2015 23:02 To: Martin Boyle Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles Document
Martin,
Congratulations on getting us close to done on the Principles.
As I read footnote 1, it is now clear that "IANA Functions Operator" refers to the entire entity that provides the service (currently ICANN) and not to any smaller unit within the entity.
I will look forward to hearing about the issues on 7.ii, and particularly what is wrong with respecting national laws, processes and decisions (or what caveats need to be applied to that to protect certain interests within the cc community).
Greg
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote: Dear all,
Following last week’s call, I have discussed outstanding issues with those parties who had raised concerns about different parts of the text. I am grateful to them for their understanding and willingness to look for solutions and I am pleased to note that we have a near consensus document in the attached.
There have been a number of small edits made in response to Andrew Sullivan’s comments seeking to clarify the wording. These are in the heading and paragraphs 4, 5.iv & the second sentence of paragraph 7.ii.
On the more difficult issues: · Seun has agreed to a revised (and simpler) text for footnote 1 (paragraph 5.2): “The term IANA functions operator refers to the entity that provides the service.” This replaces the text proposed for the 12 March call, “The term IANA functions operator refers to the entity that provides the service, independent of the organisation that hosts it, currently ICANN.”
· Mary has agreed to drop her proposal in paragraph 10, to replace “must” by “should”. This returns us to the original text of, “Multistakeholderism: any proposal must foster multi-stakeholder participation in the future oversight of the IANA functions.”
The outstanding point is on the first sentence of paragraph 7.ii. Elise Lindeberg has consulted within the GAC and proposed the text included in this current draft. Milton Mueller and Andrew Sullivan have both accepted this wording, but Paul Kane has rejected it. He has been invited to consider an alternative that he could work with.
I’m afraid I will be a little late joining the call on Tuesday, but I hope we will be able to use the call to finalise the text.
Martin
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
participants (7)
-
CW Lists -
Eduardo Diaz, PE -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
James Gannon -
Martin Boyle -
Milton L Mueller