[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