RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition

["Tony Holmes" <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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