Re: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agree with Tony.

Thanks.

Amr

On Feb 27, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Jonathan
> Whilst I accept it would have been preferable to submit this earlier, it 
> would still provide better optics for the GNSO to be publicly supportive of 
> the process, rather than silent.
> Regards
> Tony
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
> Sent: 26 February 2015 15:30
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition
>  
> All,
>  
> In the Registries SG meeting yesterday, there was pushback against this 
> statement. Not with regard to the content as such but rather to the timing.
>  
> If you recall, this was planned to be sent our pre-ICANN 52 and made good 
> sense then. Reinforced by the concerns we heard over the progress of the CWG 
> in Singapore.
>  
> Someone had good foresight pre ICANN 52 - but the key question - does it 
> still make sense / add value?
>  
> Or, does it make us look behind the times?
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 24 February 2015 13:40
> To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; 
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition
>  
> Thanks Jonathan. I’ll pass this along to the BC and get back to you ASAP.
>  
> Best, Philip
>  
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/cell
>  
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>  
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>  
> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:12 AM
> To: Phil Corwin; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition
>  
> Thanks Philip,
>  
> Regarding the two questions below, my understanding is as follows:
>  
> 1.      The purpose of the statement is to provide some positive support for 
> the work of the CWG in a context where many appeared to be questioning the 
> extent or effectiveness of the work of the CWG. It was felt that it would be 
> helpful to the CWG (and to the broader community perceptions of the CWG) to 
> have a supportive statement by one of the initiating and chartering 
> organisations i.e. recognising the effort to date.
> 2.      The effect of endorsing the statement is primarily to support the 
> view of the Council in the proper way i.e. instead of the Council simply 
> issuing the statement on its own behalf, the Council appropriately refers the 
> statement to constituencies and SGs. A secondary benefit of reviewing the 
> statement is the ongoing raising of the awareness of the current status of 
> the work of the CWG within the GNSO community such that the GNSO community is 
> in a state of readiness to appraise (and ideally support) the final proposal 
> of the CWG when it does come out.
>  
> They are an interesting pair of questions in the context of my edits to the 
> original Tony / Avri draft in that I modified the statement to be more of a 
> GNSO Council statement as opposed to a GNSO statement. Arguably, in the 
> former case, the Councillors could simply support the statement and the GNSO 
> Council issue it. Nevertheless, in my view, it is always preferable to have 
> such a statement or similar piece of work referred to the SG / Cs and 
> supported by those SG / Cs.
>  
> I trust that helps.
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 23 February 2015 22:59
> To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; 
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition
> Importance: High
>  
> Jonathan:
>  
> Members of the Business Constituency seem to be generally supportive of the 
> sentiments contained in the draft Statement. However, I am being asked two 
> questions in regard to it:
> 1.      What is the overall purpose of issuing the Statement?
> 2.      What is the effect of a Constituency endorsing the statement – and, 
> in particular, does it replace the views of any constituency or SG or 
> preclude a more nuanced and detailed future statement by them?
>  
> Once I have those answers I should be able to indicate whether the BC can 
> support and/or be listed as a signatory.
>  
> Thanks and best regards,
> Philip
>  
> PS—This paragraph of the Statement, as modified by you and James, has two 
> typos:
> "Given [it’s] its co-ordination and policy management role within the GNSO, 
> the GNSO Council remains committed to assisting the work within CWG, CCWG and 
> the ICG in order that the community may ultimately deliver a sound, 
> comprehensive and consensus proposal for the transition of the IANA function 
> and one that will uphold the principles set forth in the NTIA announcement, 
> and fully meet the needs of the global Internet community."
>  
>  
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/cell
>  
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>  
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 6:47 AM
> To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition
>  
> Attached in .pdf if easier to read on some devices.
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 23 February 2015 11:37
> To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition
>  
> Thanks Tony & Avri,
>  
> Please see my suggested edits contained in the attached redline version.
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: David Cake [mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 23 February 2015 10:11
> To: Tony Holmes; <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> List
> Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition
>  
> I would be happy to support that statement. 
>  
> David
>  
> On 23 Feb 2015, at 3:39 am, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  
> 
> Jonathan/All
> Attached is the draft statement compiled by Avri and I on the IANA transition 
> process.
> Comments welcome.
> Regards
> Tony
>  
> <GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.zip>
>  
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9131 - Release Date: 02/17/15
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9131 - Release Date: 02/17/15