[Internal-cg] Please find attached revised summary proposal

Wed Sep 30 04:29:11 UTC 2015

Thank you to Joe for writing this up.

I agree with the others who support Milton’s edits. In general I think this text is looking good.

I think what we will end up doing is breaking the paragraphs up and putting them in the appropriate sub-sections of Part 0 about the individual NTIA criteria. The paragraph about security and stability at least will likely need some editing to flow with the rest of the text that is already there.

I wasn’t sure what you were specifically referencing in this sentence:

Some concerns were predicated on the ability to achieve some of the needed actions in contracts and to appropriately enforce them.  This is a matter that the communities are addressing in their further implementation work with the legal bases for actions being established in the proposal and across existing workstreams <>[j1] <applewebdata://64F54186-CDF1-4AC9-9968-A069B2B72100#_msocom_1> 
 <> [j1] <applewebdata://64F54186-CDF1-4AC9-9968-A069B2B72100#_msoanchor_1>Are we handling this elsewhere?

Could you clarify?

Thanks,
Alissa

> On Sep 28, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> On the contrary.  We need to be aware of the issues and the questions, but I don’t want to go into this level of detail in our final proposal.
>  
> From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>] 
> Sent: 28 September 2015 15:07
> To: Martin Boyle; internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Please find attached revised summary proposal
>  
> 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 <mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org>] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
> Sent: 26 September 2015 17:01
> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto: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 <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 <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 <http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org>
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <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/20150929/b16a9cd1/attachment.html>