Re: [Wp4] CCWG - WP4 Poll on referencing existing documents
1. No 2. N/A 3. N/A Adding something like this has potent impact on IANA, not simply ICANN in a naming and policy function. Also see Sam Eisner's rationale. Any such suggestion should be run past the IETF and RIRs. Ram -------- Original message -------- From: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> Date:10/06/2015 8:10 PM (GMT-05:00) To: wp4@icann.org Subject: [Wp4] CCWG - WP4 Poll on referencing existing documents All, Following today's WP4 it was decided to poll the WP4 participants on the subject of referring to existing human rights instruments or not. Please complete the following by 23:59 UTC Wednesday October 7th 2015 by replying to the WP4 list: Question 1 - Should there be a reference to a specific document in the Bylaws text regarding human rights proposed by the CCWG (Yes or No)? Question 2 - If a document reference is included should it be the UDHR (yes or no)? Question 3 - If not UDHR what other document or documents should be referred to (list)? Thank you. Staff for Leon Sanchez.
Hi, I do not see this. This is ICANN accountabilty. And the Protocol and Number communities have made it very clear that they are not intersteed in what the Names community does with accountability, or much of anything else the Names community cares about for that matter, as long as we leave them out of it. Also what do you think IANA is doing that related to human rights, as we have had pounded into our heads, they are not making policy, they just perform a clerical function doing what they are told to do by the OCs. avri On 07-Oct-15 05:02, ram.mohan wrote:
Adding something like this has potent impact on IANA, not simply ICANN in a naming and policy function. Also see Sam Eisner's rationale.
Any such suggestion should be run past the IETF and RIRs.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
The protocol and number communities expect that the naming community not unilaterally require bylaw changes on the organization that includes functions that are critical to what they do without consultation. I don't see why that is something we should object to. -----Original Message----- From: wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 8:53 AM To: wp4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Wp4] CCWG - WP4 Poll on referencing existing documents Hi, I do not see this. This is ICANN accountabilty. And the Protocol and Number communities have made it very clear that they are not intersteed in what the Names community does with accountability, or much of anything else the Names community cares about for that matter, as long as we leave them out of it. Also what do you think IANA is doing that related to human rights, as we have had pounded into our heads, they are not making policy, they just perform a clerical function doing what they are told to do by the OCs. avri On 07-Oct-15 05:02, ram.mohan wrote:
Adding something like this has potent impact on IANA, not simply ICANN in a naming and policy function. Also see Sam Eisner's rationale.
Any such suggestion should be run past the IETF and RIRs.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
Adherence to human rights within ICANN's mission will interfere the allocation of a protocol or an IPv6 block? Come on!?!?! el On 2015-10-07 15:59, Ram Mohan wrote:
The protocol and number communities expect that the naming community not unilaterally require bylaw changes on the organization that includes functions that are critical to what they do without consultation. I don't see why that is something we should object to.
-----Original Message----- From: wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 8:53 AM To: wp4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Wp4] CCWG - WP4 Poll on referencing existing documents
Hi,
I do not see this. This is ICANN accountabilty. And the Protocol and Number communities have made it very clear that they are not intersteed in what the Names community does with accountability, or much of anything else the Names community cares about for that matter, as long as we leave them out of it.
Also what do you think IANA is doing that related to human rights, as we have had pounded into our heads, they are not making policy, they just perform a clerical function doing what they are told to do by the OCs.
avri
On 07-Oct-15 05:02, ram.mohan wrote:
Adding something like this has potent impact on IANA, not simply ICANN in a naming and policy function. Also see Sam Eisner's rationale.
Any such suggestion should be run past the IETF and RIRs. [...]
This is why it's important to first have a conversation with the number and protocol communities and determine their point of view, rather than make assumptions about their level of caring, and in parallel impose bylaw changes on functions that impact them directly. Discussions involving human rights in the IETF have been quite charged in the past. This is more complex than the simplistic case presented below. -----Original Message----- From: wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 10:04 AM To: wp4@icann.org Cc: directors@omadhina.net Subject: Re: [Wp4] CCWG - WP4 Poll on referencing existing documents Adherence to human rights within ICANN's mission will interfere the allocation of a protocol or an IPv6 block? Come on!?!?! el On 2015-10-07 15:59, Ram Mohan wrote:
The protocol and number communities expect that the naming community not unilaterally require bylaw changes on the organization that includes functions that are critical to what they do without consultation. I don't see why that is something we should object to.
-----Original Message----- From: wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 8:53 AM To: wp4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Wp4] CCWG - WP4 Poll on referencing existing documents
Hi,
I do not see this. This is ICANN accountabilty. And the Protocol and Number communities have made it very clear that they are not intersteed in what the Names community does with accountability, or much of anything else the Names community cares about for that matter, as long as we leave them out of it.
Also what do you think IANA is doing that related to human rights, as we have had pounded into our heads, they are not making policy, they just perform a clerical function doing what they are told to do by the OCs.
avri
On 07-Oct-15 05:02, ram.mohan wrote:
Adding something like this has potent impact on IANA, not simply ICANN in a naming and policy function. Also see Sam Eisner's rationale.
Any such suggestion should be run past the IETF and RIRs. [...]
Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
Ram, There's an implicit assumption in your email that I would like to challenge. I would tend to disagree with the implicit assumption that the CCWG only represents the "names community." You may be conflating the CCWG with the CWG-Stewardship, which was set up to represent the names community. The CCWG was not chartered in the same fashion and should not be viewed as merely the voice of the "names community." This line of argument opens another can of worms, or perhaps merely another front in the Board's attack on the representativeness of the community. It could be extended to virtually any actions by the CCWG. The end result is a suggestion that the entire Accountability Proposal should be run through the IETF and RIRs. That concerns me greatly. Greg On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Ram Mohan <ram.mohan@icann.org> wrote:
The protocol and number communities expect that the naming community not unilaterally require bylaw changes on the organization that includes functions that are critical to what they do without consultation. I don't see why that is something we should object to.
-----Original Message----- From: wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 8:53 AM To: wp4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Wp4] CCWG - WP4 Poll on referencing existing documents
Hi,
I do not see this. This is ICANN accountabilty. And the Protocol and Number communities have made it very clear that they are not intersteed in what the Names community does with accountability, or much of anything else the Names community cares about for that matter, as long as we leave them out of it.
Also what do you think IANA is doing that related to human rights, as we have had pounded into our heads, they are not making policy, they just perform a clerical function doing what they are told to do by the OCs.
avri
On 07-Oct-15 05:02, ram.mohan wrote:
Adding something like this has potent impact on IANA, not simply ICANN in a naming and policy function. Also see Sam Eisner's rationale.
Any such suggestion should be run past the IETF and RIRs.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
All, I think it is worthwhile noting that the chartering organizations of the ccwg accountability are : - ASO - gNSO - ccNSO - Gac - ALAC - SSAC Best, Mathieu Weill --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style
Le 7 oct. 2015 à 16:22, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> a écrit :
Ram,
There's an implicit assumption in your email that I would like to challenge. I would tend to disagree with the implicit assumption that the CCWG only represents the "names community." You may be conflating the CCWG with the CWG-Stewardship, which was set up to represent the names community. The CCWG was not chartered in the same fashion and should not be viewed as merely the voice of the "names community."
This line of argument opens another can of worms, or perhaps merely another front in the Board's attack on the representativeness of the community. It could be extended to virtually any actions by the CCWG. The end result is a suggestion that the entire Accountability Proposal should be run through the IETF and RIRs. That concerns me greatly.
Greg
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Ram Mohan <ram.mohan@icann.org> wrote: The protocol and number communities expect that the naming community not unilaterally require bylaw changes on the organization that includes functions that are critical to what they do without consultation. I don't see why that is something we should object to.
-----Original Message----- From: wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 8:53 AM To: wp4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Wp4] CCWG - WP4 Poll on referencing existing documents
Hi,
I do not see this. This is ICANN accountabilty. And the Protocol and Number communities have made it very clear that they are not intersteed in what the Names community does with accountability, or much of anything else the Names community cares about for that matter, as long as we leave them out of it.
Also what do you think IANA is doing that related to human rights, as we have had pounded into our heads, they are not making policy, they just perform a clerical function doing what they are told to do by the OCs.
avri
On 07-Oct-15 05:02, ram.mohan wrote:
Adding something like this has potent impact on IANA, not simply ICANN in a naming and policy function. Also see Sam Eisner's rationale.
Any such suggestion should be run past the IETF and RIRs.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
Hi Greg, I don’t believe I’m conflating the WGs, but thanks for the clarification all the same. What I hear from some folks in the protocol and numbering community is that the CCWG represents the names community (it’s not what was intended, I agree). The ASO is one of the chartering orgs in the CCWG, iirc. Adding Human Rights to bylaws that affect the other communities ought to have input from them. It’s not a “Board view”, it’s my individual view as an engaged community member who happens to cross over across names, numbers and protocols. -Ram From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 10:22 AM To: ram.mohan@icann.org Cc: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>; wp4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Wp4] CCWG - WP4 Poll on referencing existing documents Ram, There's an implicit assumption in your email that I would like to challenge. I would tend to disagree with the implicit assumption that the CCWG only represents the "names community." You may be conflating the CCWG with the CWG-Stewardship, which was set up to represent the names community. The CCWG was not chartered in the same fashion and should not be viewed as merely the voice of the "names community." This line of argument opens another can of worms, or perhaps merely another front in the Board's attack on the representativeness of the community. It could be extended to virtually any actions by the CCWG. The end result is a suggestion that the entire Accountability Proposal should be run through the IETF and RIRs. That concerns me greatly. Greg On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Ram Mohan <ram.mohan@icann.org <mailto:ram.mohan@icann.org> > wrote: The protocol and number communities expect that the naming community not unilaterally require bylaw changes on the organization that includes functions that are critical to what they do without consultation. I don't see why that is something we should object to. -----Original Message----- From: wp4-bounces@icann.org <mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org <mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 8:53 AM To: wp4@icann.org <mailto:wp4@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Wp4] CCWG - WP4 Poll on referencing existing documents Hi, I do not see this. This is ICANN accountabilty. And the Protocol and Number communities have made it very clear that they are not intersteed in what the Names community does with accountability, or much of anything else the Names community cares about for that matter, as long as we leave them out of it. Also what do you think IANA is doing that related to human rights, as we have had pounded into our heads, they are not making policy, they just perform a clerical function doing what they are told to do by the OCs. avri On 07-Oct-15 05:02, ram.mohan wrote:
Adding something like this has potent impact on IANA, not simply ICANN in a naming and policy function. Also see Sam Eisner's rationale.
Any such suggestion should be run past the IETF and RIRs.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4 _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
Hi Greg, I don’t believe I’m conflating the WGs, but thanks for the clarification all the same. What I hear from some folks in the protocol and numbering community is that the CCWG represents the names community (it’s not what was intended, I agree). Adding Human Rights to bylaws that affect the other communities ought to have input from them. It’s not a “Board view”, or some other conspiracy theory, it’s my individual view as an engaged community member who happens to cross over across names, numbers and protocols. -Ram From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 10:22 AM To: ram.mohan@icann.org Cc: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>; wp4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Wp4] CCWG - WP4 Poll on referencing existing documents Ram, There's an implicit assumption in your email that I would like to challenge. I would tend to disagree with the implicit assumption that the CCWG only represents the "names community." You may be conflating the CCWG with the CWG-Stewardship, which was set up to represent the names community. The CCWG was not chartered in the same fashion and should not be viewed as merely the voice of the "names community." This line of argument opens another can of worms, or perhaps merely another front in the Board's attack on the representativeness of the community. It could be extended to virtually any actions by the CCWG. The end result is a suggestion that the entire Accountability Proposal should be run through the IETF and RIRs. That concerns me greatly. Greg On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Ram Mohan <ram.mohan@icann.org <mailto:ram.mohan@icann.org> > wrote: The protocol and number communities expect that the naming community not unilaterally require bylaw changes on the organization that includes functions that are critical to what they do without consultation. I don't see why that is something we should object to. -----Original Message----- From: wp4-bounces@icann.org <mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org <mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 8:53 AM To: wp4@icann.org <mailto:wp4@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Wp4] CCWG - WP4 Poll on referencing existing documents Hi, I do not see this. This is ICANN accountabilty. And the Protocol and Number communities have made it very clear that they are not intersteed in what the Names community does with accountability, or much of anything else the Names community cares about for that matter, as long as we leave them out of it. Also what do you think IANA is doing that related to human rights, as we have had pounded into our heads, they are not making policy, they just perform a clerical function doing what they are told to do by the OCs. avri On 07-Oct-15 05:02, ram.mohan wrote:
Adding something like this has potent impact on IANA, not simply ICANN in a naming and policy function. Also see Sam Eisner's rationale.
Any such suggestion should be run past the IETF and RIRs.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4 _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
participants (6)
-
Avri Doria -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Greg Shatan -
Mathieu Weill -
Ram Mohan -
ram.mohan