Athina,
Thank you for the reminder, and thanks for the good work.
On 02.06.15 18.20, Athina Fragkouli wrote:
1. Revised Mission
The CCWG suggests clarifications on the description of ICANN’s mission
(more details in section 3.1 of the Draft Report). During the drafting
process the ASO representatives provided a tentative description of
ICANN’s mission in regard to the coordination of policy development for
Internet number resources (page 20, paragraph 57). The tentative
description reads as follows:
“In this role, with respect to IP addresses and AS numbers, ICANN’s
Mission is described in the ASO MoU between ICANN and RIRs.”
Do you feel that this description is accurate?
Yes - reference to the ASO MoU is appropriate in order to avoid
conflicting definitions.
2. Revised Commitments and Core Values
The CCWG proposes an amendment to one of the core values of the Bylaws
(page 25, paragraph 89). The proposed amendment reads as follows:
“Employ open, transparent and bottom-up, [private sector led
multistakeholder] policy development processes that (i) seeks input from
the public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events act, (ii)
promote well- informed decisions based on expert advice, and (iii)
ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy
development process;”
Given that the RIR global policies are described as open, transparent
and bottom-up, the ASO representatives have a concern on the inclusion
of the notion of “private sector led multistakeholder”, which is put in
square brackets. The addition of this notion may lead to uncertainty on
whether ICANN’s core values include the employment of RIR global policies.
Do you agree with the removal of the notion “private sector led
multistakeholder”?
I see no need to add "private sector led multistakeholder". The term
multistakeholder has traditionally not been used in our community and
tends to create discussion and confusion.
The RIPE community is and has been, open, bottom-up, transparent &
inclusive and a restriction to private sector lead is not necessary.
While we have been de-facto "private sector lead" - we have had
government employee participation and working-group chair -
participating on equal terms.
3. US Headquarters as part of the Fundamental Bylaws
The CCWG incorporated some provisions from the Affirmation of
Commitments relevant to ICANN accountability into the Bylaws (in
particular regarding ICANN’s Mission and Core Values). The CCWG has
suggested defining these provisions as "Fundamental Bylaws". The concept
of Fundamental Bylaws is described in section 3.2 (pp 27-31) of the
Draft Report. The main difference with the common Bylaws provisions is
that while the Board could propose a change to this Bylaws provision,
SO/ACs could block the proposed change (by a 75% vote). On the other
hand any change to Fundamental Bylaws would require approval by SO/ACs
(75% vote).
One of these provisions requires that ICANN “remains headquartered in
the United States of America”. The CCWG noted that this provision exists
already in current ICANN Bylaws, at Article XVIII Section 1: “OFFICES.
The principal office for the transaction of the business of ICANN shall
be in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, United States of
America. ICANN may also have an additional office or offices within or
outside the United States of America as it may from time to time establish.”
As the rest of Affirmation of Commitments provisions are suggested to be
incorporated in the Fundamental Bylaws, the CCWG considered whether this
provision should also be listed as a Fundamental Bylaw. The comment by
the ASO Representatives was that while the rest of the Affirmation of
Commitments provisions incorporated can indeed be seen as fundamental
principles, the notion of US Headquarters is an administrative issue,
which would not be considered as fundamental.
Do you agree with the ASO representatives approach?
I agree.
4. Appealing Mechanisms
The CCWG has proposed enhancements to the two appealing mechanisms
described in ICANN Bylaws, i.e. the Independent Review Panel and the
Reconsideration process. The ASO representatives commented that, even
though the ICANN Board approves its global policies, the processes and
forums for bottom-up policy development relating to number resources is
outside of ICANN, and there are separate appealing procedures for
disputes relating to Internet number resources. In particular there is:
1. an arbitration process described in the ASO MoU for disputes relevant
to the Global Policy development process
2. an arbitration process described in the draft Service Level Agreement
between the five RIRs and IANA Numbering Services Operator for disputes
relevant to the IANA numbering services.
3. A bottom-up process for any concerns that a third party may have
relating to Internet number resources issues.
Additionally the ASO representatives noted that it was requested by the
CWG that decisions regarding ccTLD delegations or revocations would be
excluded from standing, until relevant appeal mechanisms have been
developed by the ccTLD community, in coordination with other parties.
Considering the above, the ASO representatives would propose that any
appeal mechanism developed by the CCWG should not cover disputes
relating to Internet number resources.
I fully agree that we should use existing dispute-resolution mechanisms
and not let other communities impose their dispute resolution mechansims
on our community. That would be contradictory to the bottom-up principle.
5. Powers
The CCWG suggested that the following powers would ensure community
empowerment:
- Reconsider/reject budget or strategy/operating plans (section 5.2 of
the Draft Report, pp 47-48). We would like to note that this power was
listed as one of the expected accountability mechanisms by the CWG.
- Reconsider/reject changes to ICANN Standard Bylaws (section 5.3 of the
Draft Report pp 48-49)
- Approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws (section 5.4 of the Draft Report
pp 49-50)
- Remove individual ICANN Directors (section 5.5 of the Draft Report pp
50-52)
- Recall the entire ICANN Board (section 5.6 of the Draft Report pp 52- 53)
These powers would be exercised by changing ICANN’s structure into a
membership-based organisation, of which the SO/ACs would be the members.
Details of this structure can be found in section 5.1.1 of the proposal
(pp 42-45).
Do you have any concerns or comments on any of these powers or the
suggested structure?
I fully agree, as long as the membership structure is transparent and
well-defined.
Sincerely,
--
Hans Petter Holen
Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | [email protected] | http://hph.oslo.net
