Escalation Process
Hello all, I was unfortunately unable to attend the last CWG call due to commitments at EuroDIG but have reviewed the transcript of the call and have a question regarding the escalation. As Alan voiced it clearly on the call, the ALAC has concerns about the multistakeholder component of the escalation, has doubts that the GNSO and ccNSO are balanced multistakeholder groups - and has concerns that with the IANA Function's main goals being to operate a stable Internet, the very Advisory Group that is concerned with Stability of the Domain Name System is not explicitly included in the escalation process. In order to clear any misunderstanding and in order to avoid us all driving in the wrong direction and potentially committing a faux-pas that could cast doubt over the multistakeholder element of the escalation process, could someone please clearly summarise the escalation, from the point a problem takes place, through its escalation from the CSC all the way to when it reaches the SCWG, and please identify the make-up of each of the groups along the way? In order to evaluate the multistakeholder element, we need to look at the overall picture, not each of the small groups or committees in isolation. As far as the GNSO engaging in more than policy work, we may have stumbled on an anomaly. Agreed, the GNSO has and indeed should comment on matters that affect it directly, such as the Budget. That said reading Article X of the ICANN Bylaws, it is very clear indeed that the GNSO is a policy-development body. Its voting thresholds are quite carefully fleshed out and all relate to a PDP except in the creationg of an Issues Report. It is therefore clear that if the GNSO was to assume a responsibility in the IANA escalation process, this would require Bylaw Changes. As far as the GNSO being multistakeholder, it needs to be recognised that the multistakeholder aspect of the GNSO is highly imbalanced, with two thirds of its Council being composed of Private Sector and with no specific Technical Community nor Governments being represented. Furthermore, there are absolutely no checks and balances for Geographical balance and the GNSO Council is therefore highly biased in its composition towards North America and Western Europe. So if we need a multistakeholder committee in the critical path of the escalation, this is not it. I also do not agree with the notion that a multistakeholder consultation (an open public comment period), but the critical path on the escalation not including a full multistakeholder Committee, is actually a multistakeholder process. This is akin to saying the ITU - which makes all its decisions in a multilateral fashion, is multistakeholder because it includes an open comment period where stakeholders other than Governments are allowed to speak. Whenever a complete stakeholder category can be completely ignored at will by other stakeholders, this is not a multistakeholder model. Balance means having the right to vote, not just comment. I look forward to your responses. Kindest regards, Olivier
Hi Olivier, I think there's a bit of confusion creeping in here, so I wonder whether I could give an interpretation of what I see as the single case of the escalation from the CSC. Remember that this is *only* to do with issues related to the mandate of the CSC - ie to the performance of the service. * CSC seeks to get the PTI to remedy service-level shortfalls. This could include reference to the PTI Board or to the ICANN CEO given that the issue might be that the PTI is not receiving necessary resources to address issues. * Still no improvements: CSC raises the issue with the GNSO and ccNSO. This is essentially a "sanity check." In its discussions, DT-C was concerned that (perhaps as few as) three people could make a significant decision. By their role, CSC members will be very close to the issue. The GNSO and ccNSO role is to get a clear understanding of the issue and its impact on the direct customers. * If the ccNSO & GNSO agree that the issue is serious and systemic, they will propose (or endorse the CSC recommendation for) a special IFR. At this stage, this process goes to a public comment and multi-stakeholder engagement process. So (and again I stress that this is an escalation triggered by a CSC recommendation) the role of the GNSO and ccNSO is to validate the views of the customer community. Once this has been done, the process becomes the full multi-stakeholder process. As this will be a process massively expensive on volunteers' time, it would be silly to launch a process on performance issues if the customer community did not see any strong reason to go through this process. Hope this helps Martin -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: 05 June 2015 08:59 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process Hello all, I was unfortunately unable to attend the last CWG call due to commitments at EuroDIG but have reviewed the transcript of the call and have a question regarding the escalation. As Alan voiced it clearly on the call, the ALAC has concerns about the multistakeholder component of the escalation, has doubts that the GNSO and ccNSO are balanced multistakeholder groups - and has concerns that with the IANA Function's main goals being to operate a stable Internet, the very Advisory Group that is concerned with Stability of the Domain Name System is not explicitly included in the escalation process. In order to clear any misunderstanding and in order to avoid us all driving in the wrong direction and potentially committing a faux-pas that could cast doubt over the multistakeholder element of the escalation process, could someone please clearly summarise the escalation, from the point a problem takes place, through its escalation from the CSC all the way to when it reaches the SCWG, and please identify the make-up of each of the groups along the way? In order to evaluate the multistakeholder element, we need to look at the overall picture, not each of the small groups or committees in isolation. As far as the GNSO engaging in more than policy work, we may have stumbled on an anomaly. Agreed, the GNSO has and indeed should comment on matters that affect it directly, such as the Budget. That said reading Article X of the ICANN Bylaws, it is very clear indeed that the GNSO is a policy-development body. Its voting thresholds are quite carefully fleshed out and all relate to a PDP except in the creationg of an Issues Report. It is therefore clear that if the GNSO was to assume a responsibility in the IANA escalation process, this would require Bylaw Changes. As far as the GNSO being multistakeholder, it needs to be recognised that the multistakeholder aspect of the GNSO is highly imbalanced, with two thirds of its Council being composed of Private Sector and with no specific Technical Community nor Governments being represented. Furthermore, there are absolutely no checks and balances for Geographical balance and the GNSO Council is therefore highly biased in its composition towards North America and Western Europe. So if we need a multistakeholder committee in the critical path of the escalation, this is not it. I also do not agree with the notion that a multistakeholder consultation (an open public comment period), but the critical path on the escalation not including a full multistakeholder Committee, is actually a multistakeholder process. This is akin to saying the ITU - which makes all its decisions in a multilateral fashion, is multistakeholder because it includes an open comment period where stakeholders other than Governments are allowed to speak. Whenever a complete stakeholder category can be completely ignored at will by other stakeholders, this is not a multistakeholder model. Balance means having the right to vote, not just comment. I look forward to your responses. Kindest regards, Olivier _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Right. The review by GNSO and ccNSO is just a check, a small step in a larger process. GNSO includes a broad range of user and technical interests and ccNSO does include many governments in their capacity as TLD operators.
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Friday, June 5, 2015 3:28 AM To: Olivier Crepin-Leblond; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process
Hi Olivier,
I think there's a bit of confusion creeping in here, so I wonder whether I could give an interpretation of what I see as the single case of the escalation from the CSC. Remember that this is *only* to do with issues related to the mandate of the CSC - ie to the performance of the service.
* CSC seeks to get the PTI to remedy service-level shortfalls. This could include reference to the PTI Board or to the ICANN CEO given that the issue might be that the PTI is not receiving necessary resources to address issues.
* Still no improvements: CSC raises the issue with the GNSO and ccNSO. This is essentially a "sanity check." In its discussions, DT-C was concerned that (perhaps as few as) three people could make a significant decision. By their role, CSC members will be very close to the issue. The GNSO and ccNSO role is to get a clear understanding of the issue and its impact on the direct customers.
* If the ccNSO & GNSO agree that the issue is serious and systemic, they will propose (or endorse the CSC recommendation for) a special IFR. At this stage, this process goes to a public comment and multi-stakeholder engagement process.
So (and again I stress that this is an escalation triggered by a CSC recommendation) the role of the GNSO and ccNSO is to validate the views of the customer community. Once this has been done, the process becomes the full multi-stakeholder process. As this will be a process massively expensive on volunteers' time, it would be silly to launch a process on performance issues if the customer community did not see any strong reason to go through this process.
Hope this helps
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: 05 June 2015 08:59 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process
Hello all,
I was unfortunately unable to attend the last CWG call due to commitments at EuroDIG but have reviewed the transcript of the call and have a question regarding the escalation. As Alan voiced it clearly on the call, the ALAC has concerns about the multistakeholder component of the escalation, has doubts that the GNSO and ccNSO are balanced multistakeholder groups - and has concerns that with the IANA Function's main goals being to operate a stable Internet, the very Advisory Group that is concerned with Stability of the Domain Name System is not explicitly included in the escalation process.
In order to clear any misunderstanding and in order to avoid us all driving in the wrong direction and potentially committing a faux-pas that could cast doubt over the multistakeholder element of the escalation process, could someone please clearly summarise the escalation, from the point a problem takes place, through its escalation from the CSC all the way to when it reaches the SCWG, and please identify the make-up of each of the groups along the way? In order to evaluate the multistakeholder element, we need to look at the overall picture, not each of the small groups or committees in isolation.
As far as the GNSO engaging in more than policy work, we may have stumbled on an anomaly. Agreed, the GNSO has and indeed should comment on matters that affect it directly, such as the Budget. That said reading Article X of the ICANN Bylaws, it is very clear indeed that the GNSO is a policy-development body. Its voting thresholds are quite carefully fleshed out and all relate to a PDP except in the creationg of an Issues Report. It is therefore clear that if the GNSO was to assume a responsibility in the IANA escalation process, this would require Bylaw Changes.
As far as the GNSO being multistakeholder, it needs to be recognised that the multistakeholder aspect of the GNSO is highly imbalanced, with two thirds of its Council being composed of Private Sector and with no specific Technical Community nor Governments being represented. Furthermore, there are absolutely no checks and balances for Geographical balance and the GNSO Council is therefore highly biased in its composition towards North America and Western Europe. So if we need a multistakeholder committee in the critical path of the escalation, this is not it.
I also do not agree with the notion that a multistakeholder consultation (an open public comment period), but the critical path on the escalation not including a full multistakeholder Committee, is actually a multistakeholder process. This is akin to saying the ITU - which makes all its decisions in a multilateral fashion, is multistakeholder because it includes an open comment period where stakeholders other than Governments are allowed to speak. Whenever a complete stakeholder category can be completely ignored at will by other stakeholders, this is not a multistakeholder model. Balance means having the right to vote, not just comment.
I look forward to your responses.
Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ 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
Olivier, Martin, Milton - Thanks Olivier for your very useful reflection on the Multistakeholder component to the escalations mechanisms. This is also high on the agenda for the GAC. I think it will be challenging to advocate that the CSC is Multistakeholder in the composition we now have - it's clearly defined as for the registries. That is why I supported Martins comment about changing the text in the report - let's not call it something it isn't (even if we have liaisons and maybe some governments... in their capacity ac TLD operators). The reason why I think it might work as a model is described in Martin comment - the fact that if it comes to the stage that the issue is serious and systemic, "final" process must go to a public comment and multi-stakeholder engagement process. - What we might meet as an argument against this beeing Multistakeholder model, is that maybe others than the CSC ("direct customers") might see the need to initiate a special IFR about other issues than issues related to the limited mandate of the CSC... - timely and proper PTI implementation of the practical outcome of policy set by ICANN community is of high interest and importance to many others that the ccTLDs and gTLD's. Any concerns in this regard is now put off to the regular/periodic review. So maybe we have a small gap here .. - or mabye this is just theoretical...we will see in our discussions in BA. In any case I think it is very important that we then put in clear writing that CSC escalation is about customer performance only...and that again shows the importance that regular IFR and special IFR beeing totally separate processes Best Elise -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Milton L Mueller Sendt: 5. juni 2015 11:06 Til: Martin Boyle; Olivier Crepin-Leblond; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process Right. The review by GNSO and ccNSO is just a check, a small step in a larger process. GNSO includes a broad range of user and technical interests and ccNSO does include many governments in their capacity as TLD operators.
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Friday, June 5, 2015 3:28 AM To: Olivier Crepin-Leblond; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process
Hi Olivier,
I think there's a bit of confusion creeping in here, so I wonder whether I could give an interpretation of what I see as the single case of the escalation from the CSC. Remember that this is *only* to do with issues related to the mandate of the CSC - ie to the performance of the service.
* CSC seeks to get the PTI to remedy service-level shortfalls. This could include reference to the PTI Board or to the ICANN CEO given that the issue might be that the PTI is not receiving necessary resources to address issues.
* Still no improvements: CSC raises the issue with the GNSO and ccNSO. This is essentially a "sanity check." In its discussions, DT-C was concerned that (perhaps as few as) three people could make a significant decision. By their role, CSC members will be very close to the issue. The GNSO and ccNSO role is to get a clear understanding of the issue and its impact on the direct customers.
* If the ccNSO & GNSO agree that the issue is serious and systemic, they will propose (or endorse the CSC recommendation for) a special IFR. At this stage, this process goes to a public comment and multi-stakeholder engagement process.
So (and again I stress that this is an escalation triggered by a CSC recommendation) the role of the GNSO and ccNSO is to validate the views of the customer community. Once this has been done, the process becomes the full multi-stakeholder process. As this will be a process massively expensive on volunteers' time, it would be silly to launch a process on performance issues if the customer community did not see any strong reason to go through this process.
Hope this helps
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: 05 June 2015 08:59 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process
Hello all,
I was unfortunately unable to attend the last CWG call due to commitments at EuroDIG but have reviewed the transcript of the call and have a question regarding the escalation. As Alan voiced it clearly on the call, the ALAC has concerns about the multistakeholder component of the escalation, has doubts that the GNSO and ccNSO are balanced multistakeholder groups - and has concerns that with the IANA Function's main goals being to operate a stable Internet, the very Advisory Group that is concerned with Stability of the Domain Name System is not explicitly included in the escalation process.
In order to clear any misunderstanding and in order to avoid us all driving in the wrong direction and potentially committing a faux-pas that could cast doubt over the multistakeholder element of the escalation process, could someone please clearly summarise the escalation, from the point a problem takes place, through its escalation from the CSC all the way to when it reaches the SCWG, and please identify the make-up of each of the groups along the way? In order to evaluate the multistakeholder element, we need to look at the overall picture, not each of the small groups or committees in isolation.
As far as the GNSO engaging in more than policy work, we may have stumbled on an anomaly. Agreed, the GNSO has and indeed should comment on matters that affect it directly, such as the Budget. That said reading Article X of the ICANN Bylaws, it is very clear indeed that the GNSO is a policy-development body. Its voting thresholds are quite carefully fleshed out and all relate to a PDP except in the creationg of an Issues Report. It is therefore clear that if the GNSO was to assume a responsibility in the IANA escalation process, this would require Bylaw Changes.
As far as the GNSO being multistakeholder, it needs to be recognised that the multistakeholder aspect of the GNSO is highly imbalanced, with two thirds of its Council being composed of Private Sector and with no specific Technical Community nor Governments being represented. Furthermore, there are absolutely no checks and balances for Geographical balance and the GNSO Council is therefore highly biased in its composition towards North America and Western Europe. So if we need a multistakeholder committee in the critical path of the escalation, this is not it.
I also do not agree with the notion that a multistakeholder consultation (an open public comment period), but the critical path on the escalation not including a full multistakeholder Committee, is actually a multistakeholder process. This is akin to saying the ITU - which makes all its decisions in a multilateral fashion, is multistakeholder because it includes an open comment period where stakeholders other than Governments are allowed to speak. Whenever a complete stakeholder category can be completely ignored at will by other stakeholders, this is not a multistakeholder model. Balance means having the right to vote, not just comment.
I look forward to your responses.
Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ 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
Elise, Thanks for the useful comments. I have two questions for you: 1. You say:" timely and proper PTI implementation of the practical outcome of policy set by ICANN community is of high interest and importance to many others that the ccTLDs and gTLD's." Can you give an example of what kind of policy related to IANA services that would be of high interest to other community members and not also ccTLD and gTLD registries? 2. As proposed now the CSC can escalate performance problems to the ccNSO & GNSO. Are you thinking that there should be some other way to escalate problems to the ccNSO and GNSO besides through the CSC? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lindeberg, Elise Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 8:44 AM To: Milton L Mueller; Martin Boyle; Olivier Crepin-Leblond; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process Olivier, Martin, Milton - Thanks Olivier for your very useful reflection on the Multistakeholder component to the escalations mechanisms. This is also high on the agenda for the GAC. I think it will be challenging to advocate that the CSC is Multistakeholder in the composition we now have - it's clearly defined as for the registries. That is why I supported Martins comment about changing the text in the report - let's not call it something it isn't (even if we have liaisons and maybe some governments... in their capacity ac TLD operators). The reason why I think it might work as a model is described in Martin comment - the fact that if it comes to the stage that the issue is serious and systemic, "final" process must go to a public comment and multi-stakeholder engagement process. - What we might meet as an argument against this beeing Multistakeholder model, is that maybe others than the CSC ("direct customers") might see the need to initiate a special IFR about other issues than issues related to the limited mandate of the CSC... - timely and proper PTI implementation of the practical outcome of policy set by ICANN community is of high interest and importance to many others that the ccTLDs and gTLD's. Any concerns in this regard is now put off to the regular/periodic review. So maybe we have a small gap here .. - or mabye this is just theoretical...we will see in our discussions in BA. In any case I think it is very important that we then put in clear writing that CSC escalation is about customer performance only...and that again shows the importance that regular IFR and special IFR beeing totally separate processes Best Elise -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Milton L Mueller Sendt: 5. juni 2015 11:06 Til: Martin Boyle; Olivier Crepin-Leblond; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process Right. The review by GNSO and ccNSO is just a check, a small step in a larger process. GNSO includes a broad range of user and technical interests and ccNSO does include many governments in their capacity as TLD operators.
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Friday, June 5, 2015 3:28 AM To: Olivier Crepin-Leblond; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process
Hi Olivier,
I think there's a bit of confusion creeping in here, so I wonder whether I could give an interpretation of what I see as the single case of the escalation from the CSC. Remember that this is *only* to do with issues related to the mandate of the CSC - ie to the performance of the service.
* CSC seeks to get the PTI to remedy service-level shortfalls. This could include reference to the PTI Board or to the ICANN CEO given that the issue might be that the PTI is not receiving necessary resources to address issues.
* Still no improvements: CSC raises the issue with the GNSO and ccNSO. This is essentially a "sanity check." In its discussions, DT-C was concerned that (perhaps as few as) three people could make a significant decision. By their role, CSC members will be very close to the issue. The GNSO and ccNSO role is to get a clear understanding of the issue and its impact on the direct customers.
* If the ccNSO & GNSO agree that the issue is serious and systemic, they will propose (or endorse the CSC recommendation for) a special IFR. At this stage, this process goes to a public comment and multi-stakeholder engagement process.
So (and again I stress that this is an escalation triggered by a CSC recommendation) the role of the GNSO and ccNSO is to validate the views of the customer community. Once this has been done, the process becomes the full multi-stakeholder process. As this will be a process massively expensive on volunteers' time, it would be silly to launch a process on performance issues if the customer community did not see any strong reason to go through this process.
Hope this helps
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: 05 June 2015 08:59 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process
Hello all,
I was unfortunately unable to attend the last CWG call due to commitments at EuroDIG but have reviewed the transcript of the call and have a question regarding the escalation. As Alan voiced it clearly on the call, the ALAC has concerns about the multistakeholder component of the escalation, has doubts that the GNSO and ccNSO are balanced multistakeholder groups - and has concerns that with the IANA Function's main goals being to operate a stable Internet, the very Advisory Group that is concerned with Stability of the Domain Name System is not explicitly included in the escalation process.
In order to clear any misunderstanding and in order to avoid us all driving in the wrong direction and potentially committing a faux-pas that could cast doubt over the multistakeholder element of the escalation process, could someone please clearly summarise the escalation, from the point a problem takes place, through its escalation from the CSC all the way to when it reaches the SCWG, and please identify the make-up of each of the groups along the way? In order to evaluate the multistakeholder element, we need to look at the overall picture, not each of the small groups or committees in isolation.
As far as the GNSO engaging in more than policy work, we may have stumbled on an anomaly. Agreed, the GNSO has and indeed should comment on matters that affect it directly, such as the Budget. That said reading Article X of the ICANN Bylaws, it is very clear indeed that the GNSO is a policy-development body. Its voting thresholds are quite carefully fleshed out and all relate to a PDP except in the creationg of an Issues Report. It is therefore clear that if the GNSO was to assume a responsibility in the IANA escalation process, this would require Bylaw Changes.
As far as the GNSO being multistakeholder, it needs to be recognised that the multistakeholder aspect of the GNSO is highly imbalanced, with two thirds of its Council being composed of Private Sector and with no specific Technical Community nor Governments being represented. Furthermore, there are absolutely no checks and balances for Geographical balance and the GNSO Council is therefore highly biased in its composition towards North America and Western Europe. So if we need a multistakeholder committee in the critical path of the escalation, this is not it.
I also do not agree with the notion that a multistakeholder consultation (an open public comment period), but the critical path on the escalation not including a full multistakeholder Committee, is actually a multistakeholder process. This is akin to saying the ITU - which makes all its decisions in a multilateral fashion, is multistakeholder because it includes an open comment period where stakeholders other than Governments are allowed to speak. Whenever a complete stakeholder category can be completely ignored at will by other stakeholders, this is not a multistakeholder model. Balance means having the right to vote, not just comment.
I look forward to your responses.
Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Olivier, I want to respond to just the following paragraph of your message: " As far as the GNSO being multistakeholder, it needs to be recognised that the multistakeholder aspect of the GNSO is highly imbalanced, with two thirds of its Council being composed of Private Sector and with no specific Technical Community nor Governments being represented. Furthermore, there are absolutely no checks and balances for Geographical balance and the GNSO Council is therefore highly biased in its composition towards North America and Western Europe. So if we need a multistakeholder committee in the critical path of the escalation, this is not it." In my opinion you are doing what many often do and that is equating the GNSO to the GNSO Council. In fact you even mention the Council. It is critical to recognize the following about the GNSO and the GNSO Council: 1. The majority of what goes on in the GNSO does not happen on the Council. 2. The Council is simply the management body of the GNSO; it is not where the work happens. 3. The work of the GNSO happens in working groups that are completely open to everyone and are not governed by the rules that determine the makeup of the Council. 4. In the end of a process, the Council's role is simply to confirm that WG guidelines were followed including that best efforts were made to involve all impacted parties and that everyone was given the opportunity to participate. To claim that " the GNSO is highly imbalanced " is essentially to say that the design of WGs is imbalanced. If you believe that, I ask you to explain to me how that is the case so it can be corrected. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 1:59 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process Hello all, I was unfortunately unable to attend the last CWG call due to commitments at EuroDIG but have reviewed the transcript of the call and have a question regarding the escalation. As Alan voiced it clearly on the call, the ALAC has concerns about the multistakeholder component of the escalation, has doubts that the GNSO and ccNSO are balanced multistakeholder groups - and has concerns that with the IANA Function's main goals being to operate a stable Internet, the very Advisory Group that is concerned with Stability of the Domain Name System is not explicitly included in the escalation process. In order to clear any misunderstanding and in order to avoid us all driving in the wrong direction and potentially committing a faux-pas that could cast doubt over the multistakeholder element of the escalation process, could someone please clearly summarise the escalation, from the point a problem takes place, through its escalation from the CSC all the way to when it reaches the SCWG, and please identify the make-up of each of the groups along the way? In order to evaluate the multistakeholder element, we need to look at the overall picture, not each of the small groups or committees in isolation. As far as the GNSO engaging in more than policy work, we may have stumbled on an anomaly. Agreed, the GNSO has and indeed should comment on matters that affect it directly, such as the Budget. That said reading Article X of the ICANN Bylaws, it is very clear indeed that the GNSO is a policy-development body. Its voting thresholds are quite carefully fleshed out and all relate to a PDP except in the creationg of an Issues Report. It is therefore clear that if the GNSO was to assume a responsibility in the IANA escalation process, this would require Bylaw Changes. As far as the GNSO being multistakeholder, it needs to be recognised that the multistakeholder aspect of the GNSO is highly imbalanced, with two thirds of its Council being composed of Private Sector and with no specific Technical Community nor Governments being represented. Furthermore, there are absolutely no checks and balances for Geographical balance and the GNSO Council is therefore highly biased in its composition towards North America and Western Europe. So if we need a multistakeholder committee in the critical path of the escalation, this is not it. I also do not agree with the notion that a multistakeholder consultation (an open public comment period), but the critical path on the escalation not including a full multistakeholder Committee, is actually a multistakeholder process. This is akin to saying the ITU - which makes all its decisions in a multilateral fashion, is multistakeholder because it includes an open comment period where stakeholders other than Governments are allowed to speak. Whenever a complete stakeholder category can be completely ignored at will by other stakeholders, this is not a multistakeholder model. Balance means having the right to vote, not just comment. I look forward to your responses. Kindest regards, Olivier _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear Chuck, apologies for the brevity as I only have a few minutes. Thanks for your explanation, I think you have put your finger on exactly the question: when proposing the escalation will go to the GNSO, would it be the GNSO Council, or would it be a GNSO working group? Very different indeed. Kindest regards, Olivier On 05/06/2015 17:49, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Olivier,
I want to respond to just the following paragraph of your message:
" As far as the GNSO being multistakeholder, it needs to be recognised that the multistakeholder aspect of the GNSO is highly imbalanced, with two thirds of its Council being composed of Private Sector and with no specific Technical Community nor Governments being represented. Furthermore, there are absolutely no checks and balances for Geographical balance and the GNSO Council is therefore highly biased in its composition towards North America and Western Europe. So if we need a multistakeholder committee in the critical path of the escalation, this is not it."
In my opinion you are doing what many often do and that is equating the GNSO to the GNSO Council. In fact you even mention the Council. It is critical to recognize the following about the GNSO and the GNSO Council: 1. The majority of what goes on in the GNSO does not happen on the Council. 2. The Council is simply the management body of the GNSO; it is not where the work happens. 3. The work of the GNSO happens in working groups that are completely open to everyone and are not governed by the rules that determine the makeup of the Council. 4. In the end of a process, the Council's role is simply to confirm that WG guidelines were followed including that best efforts were made to involve all impacted parties and that everyone was given the opportunity to participate.
To claim that " the GNSO is highly imbalanced " is essentially to say that the design of WGs is imbalanced. If you believe that, I ask you to explain to me how that is the case so it can be corrected.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 1:59 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process
Hello all,
I was unfortunately unable to attend the last CWG call due to commitments at EuroDIG but have reviewed the transcript of the call and have a question regarding the escalation. As Alan voiced it clearly on the call, the ALAC has concerns about the multistakeholder component of the escalation, has doubts that the GNSO and ccNSO are balanced multistakeholder groups - and has concerns that with the IANA Function's main goals being to operate a stable Internet, the very Advisory Group that is concerned with Stability of the Domain Name System is not explicitly included in the escalation process.
In order to clear any misunderstanding and in order to avoid us all driving in the wrong direction and potentially committing a faux-pas that could cast doubt over the multistakeholder element of the escalation process, could someone please clearly summarise the escalation, from the point a problem takes place, through its escalation from the CSC all the way to when it reaches the SCWG, and please identify the make-up of each of the groups along the way? In order to evaluate the multistakeholder element, we need to look at the overall picture, not each of the small groups or committees in isolation.
As far as the GNSO engaging in more than policy work, we may have stumbled on an anomaly. Agreed, the GNSO has and indeed should comment on matters that affect it directly, such as the Budget. That said reading Article X of the ICANN Bylaws, it is very clear indeed that the GNSO is a policy-development body. Its voting thresholds are quite carefully fleshed out and all relate to a PDP except in the creationg of an Issues Report. It is therefore clear that if the GNSO was to assume a responsibility in the IANA escalation process, this would require Bylaw Changes.
As far as the GNSO being multistakeholder, it needs to be recognised that the multistakeholder aspect of the GNSO is highly imbalanced, with two thirds of its Council being composed of Private Sector and with no specific Technical Community nor Governments being represented. Furthermore, there are absolutely no checks and balances for Geographical balance and the GNSO Council is therefore highly biased in its composition towards North America and Western Europe. So if we need a multistakeholder committee in the critical path of the escalation, this is not it.
I also do not agree with the notion that a multistakeholder consultation (an open public comment period), but the critical path on the escalation not including a full multistakeholder Committee, is actually a multistakeholder process. This is akin to saying the ITU - which makes all its decisions in a multilateral fashion, is multistakeholder because it includes an open comment period where stakeholders other than Governments are allowed to speak. Whenever a complete stakeholder category can be completely ignored at will by other stakeholders, this is not a multistakeholder model. Balance means having the right to vote, not just comment.
I look forward to your responses.
Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Very good question Olivier. It would go to the Council but the Council would be responsible we responsible for involving the full community. The Council could decide to form a WG and if time was limited, the Policy & Implementation WG has recommended some new processes that might be a little faster than a PDP. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 12:36 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process Dear Chuck, apologies for the brevity as I only have a few minutes. Thanks for your explanation, I think you have put your finger on exactly the question: when proposing the escalation will go to the GNSO, would it be the GNSO Council, or would it be a GNSO working group? Very different indeed. Kindest regards, Olivier On 05/06/2015 17:49, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Olivier,
I want to respond to just the following paragraph of your message:
" As far as the GNSO being multistakeholder, it needs to be recognised that the multistakeholder aspect of the GNSO is highly imbalanced, with two thirds of its Council being composed of Private Sector and with no specific Technical Community nor Governments being represented. Furthermore, there are absolutely no checks and balances for Geographical balance and the GNSO Council is therefore highly biased in its composition towards North America and Western Europe. So if we need a multistakeholder committee in the critical path of the escalation, this is not it."
In my opinion you are doing what many often do and that is equating the GNSO to the GNSO Council. In fact you even mention the Council. It is critical to recognize the following about the GNSO and the GNSO Council: 1. The majority of what goes on in the GNSO does not happen on the Council. 2. The Council is simply the management body of the GNSO; it is not where the work happens. 3. The work of the GNSO happens in working groups that are completely open to everyone and are not governed by the rules that determine the makeup of the Council. 4. In the end of a process, the Council's role is simply to confirm that WG guidelines were followed including that best efforts were made to involve all impacted parties and that everyone was given the opportunity to participate.
To claim that " the GNSO is highly imbalanced " is essentially to say that the design of WGs is imbalanced. If you believe that, I ask you to explain to me how that is the case so it can be corrected.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 1:59 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Escalation Process
Hello all,
I was unfortunately unable to attend the last CWG call due to commitments at EuroDIG but have reviewed the transcript of the call and have a question regarding the escalation. As Alan voiced it clearly on the call, the ALAC has concerns about the multistakeholder component of the escalation, has doubts that the GNSO and ccNSO are balanced multistakeholder groups - and has concerns that with the IANA Function's main goals being to operate a stable Internet, the very Advisory Group that is concerned with Stability of the Domain Name System is not explicitly included in the escalation process.
In order to clear any misunderstanding and in order to avoid us all driving in the wrong direction and potentially committing a faux-pas that could cast doubt over the multistakeholder element of the escalation process, could someone please clearly summarise the escalation, from the point a problem takes place, through its escalation from the CSC all the way to when it reaches the SCWG, and please identify the make-up of each of the groups along the way? In order to evaluate the multistakeholder element, we need to look at the overall picture, not each of the small groups or committees in isolation.
As far as the GNSO engaging in more than policy work, we may have stumbled on an anomaly. Agreed, the GNSO has and indeed should comment on matters that affect it directly, such as the Budget. That said reading Article X of the ICANN Bylaws, it is very clear indeed that the GNSO is a policy-development body. Its voting thresholds are quite carefully fleshed out and all relate to a PDP except in the creationg of an Issues Report. It is therefore clear that if the GNSO was to assume a responsibility in the IANA escalation process, this would require Bylaw Changes.
As far as the GNSO being multistakeholder, it needs to be recognised that the multistakeholder aspect of the GNSO is highly imbalanced, with two thirds of its Council being composed of Private Sector and with no specific Technical Community nor Governments being represented. Furthermore, there are absolutely no checks and balances for Geographical balance and the GNSO Council is therefore highly biased in its composition towards North America and Western Europe. So if we need a multistakeholder committee in the critical path of the escalation, this is not it.
I also do not agree with the notion that a multistakeholder consultation (an open public comment period), but the critical path on the escalation not including a full multistakeholder Committee, is actually a multistakeholder process. This is akin to saying the ITU - which makes all its decisions in a multilateral fashion, is multistakeholder because it includes an open comment period where stakeholders other than Governments are allowed to speak. Whenever a complete stakeholder category can be completely ignored at will by other stakeholders, this is not a multistakeholder model. Balance means having the right to vote, not just comment.
I look forward to your responses.
Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
participants (5)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Lindeberg, Elise -
Martin Boyle -
Milton L Mueller -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond