[Internal-cg] FW: Please find attached revised summary proposal

[Martin Boyle]

I would just note that the CSC is not supposed to be a voting body, but might if it escalated to the ccNSO and GNSO for possible further escalation.  That step suggests to me that it will need to work through consensus, but then its role should be focussed on the technical performance, so the decision will be about whether the IANA functions operator will be able to put [whatever mess] right.

That's not to belittle the chance of voting, but it would be inappropriate to prevent a ccTLD being represented because it was government owned or controlled.  I think the answer to the "concern" would be that even two government-controlled ccTLDs would not have an absolute majority in and decision by vote.

I cannot remember the discussion Joe alludes to:  I think I might have questioned this, if someone had:  the thing about the CSC is that it should seek to resolve performance issues with the PTI (or a subsequent IANA functions operator) "to the PTI Board and further if necessary."  In itself it can only refer performance issues that are not being resolved to the ccNSO & GNSO "for consideration."  It would be for the ccNSO and GNSO to decide whether the issue were serious enough to refer to a special IFR.

So I'm fine with Milton's re-wording.

Martin

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
Sent: 26 September 2015 17:01
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Please find attached revised summary proposal

Milton:

I am fine with the suggestion, if others are OK.. Recall that they yellow was to see if there was a needed cross reference to other sections that might address the issue more fully.  I recall that a question had been raised at the meeting, perhaps by Kavouss, questioning the assertion related to voting in the CSC being a real issue due to issues being resolved in parallel workstreams...

Joe
On 9/26/2015 11:14 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
Joe,

I would like to suggest some improvements in  the paragraph on the NTIA criterion pertaining to governments.

You wrote:

A range of comments addressed the role of governments.  Among the most relevant: a couple felt that government roles would be too constrained and they would not be able to fulfill all of the criteria of the Tunis Agenda; a couple also highlighted a concern for the possible role future legislation by US government based on concern of jurisdiction; and more commentators focused on what they perceived to be a possible enhanced voting role for the GAC and concerns of governments as owners of ccTLDs in the CSC.  The proposal cannot address all hypothetical situations and has relied on the community processes to find the right balance across the stakeholder equities and operational requirements.  The ICG sees no further action as appropriate at this point, but notes the concerns raised.


I would propose to replace this paragraph with the following statement:

The overwhelming majority of comments agreed that the proposal does not replace NTIA stewardship with a government-led or intergovernmental solution. Some comments felt that governmental roles would be too constrained; others felt that the role of the U.S. government was still too strong due to the retention of U.S. jurisdiction. A few other commentators expressed concerns about the role of government-controlled ccTLDs in the CSC. The ICG notes the concerns raised, but believes that the proposal has relied on the community processes to find the right balance across the stakeholder equities and operational requirements, and thus sees no further action as needed.

A small number of comments expressed concern about the strengthening of the GAC in the new accountability arrangements. The ICG notes that insofar as they justify changes in the proposal, these comments are best addressed by the CCWG on enhanced accountability.


From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 1:58 PM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: Please find attached revised summary proposal

FYI please see the email from Joe below with the attached proposed text.

From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 1:47 PM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia<mailto:jen at icgsec.asia>>
Subject: Fwd: Please find attached revised summary proposal


FYI

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:

Please find attached revised summary proposal

Date:

Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:49:09 -0400

From:

joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com><mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>

Organization:

Oracle Corporation

To:

internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:internal-cg at icann.org> <internal-cg at icann.org><mailto:internal-cg at icann.org>



Please note that I found no cross reference in our proposal to the role

of government as multistakeholder participant that would address the

concern raised that such participation may bee seen as at odds with the

NTIA criteria.  I have tried to raise an innocuous addition as a

footnote to deal with the concern in a neutral fashion.  I have

highlighted it in red to facilitate ease of comment.  Those topics

highlighted in yellow are possible places where other more specific work

may supersede this language and be replaced by a cross reference.  There

is one margin question as well.



Thanks.








_______________________________________________

Internal-cg mailing list

Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>

http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150928/f10b02d1/attachment.html>