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

joseph alhadeff joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Mon Sep 28 14:06:35 UTC 2015


My recollection of the comment was a statement that the voting potential 
might be dependent on some developments related to parallel 
work-streams.  Not being in those, I can't be specific as to details.  
Absent a specific objection from anyone who may know better we'll take 
the Milton's comments on board as suggested; unless your second 
paragraph suggests a need for a change as to tone related to the 
likelihood  of government ccTLD voting impacting outcome ?

Joe

On 9/28/2015 9:41 AM, Martin Boyle wrote:
>
> 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/20150928/99c4693d/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list