[NRO-IANAXFER] changes to gPDP - out of scope

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Sat Jan 3 19:17:49 CET 2015

Hello Hans kindly find my response inset:

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 3 Jan 2015 16:20, "Hans Petter Holen" <hph at oslo.net> wrote:
> Hi Seun,
> I am not on the CRISP team, but will add my thoughts on your suggestion:
> On 03.01.15 07.47, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>> - I made a suggestion on minor changes on the gPDP, may I also know what
the crisp has determined about that?
> First, as I read the charter for the CRISP, reviewing the Global Policy
Development Process is outside the charter.
Could you refer me to a section that indicated that in the charter? If that
is indeed the case then there is no need to further on this discussion
except that I will say gPDP is one of the existing accountability measure
and looking to strengthen existing accountability measure should be the
main goal of this transition.

> I also think it is unwise to open up the Global Policy Development
Process at the same time as we are discussing the implementation.
I am not sure I get your point, do you care to explain further? why is
discussing gPDP unwise, I mean could you tell me a better time to discuss
it; is there any existing formal process to discuss gPDP update?

> So my strong opinion is that changes to the Global Policy Development
Process and the ASO MOU, should in my opinion be handled separately from
the NTIA transition.
Isn't one of the numbers accountability source referred to by NTIA in it's
contract the gPDP? So why would you say reviewing the existing mechanism
with the possibility of improving on it out of this NTIA transition scope.
Personally I would even say adding SLA as attachment C to the ICANN/NRO MOU
and including a few lines in the agreement to reflect the transition
changes would have been a neater way to reflect this transition in the
first place.

> So to your proposal:
> I had a look trough the archives and assume you refer to:
> On 19.12.14 07.20, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>> Finally on a related note, i suggest a minor update of section 10 of the
gPDP as follow:
>> In case Step 9 (c), should at least two of the RIRs agree that changes
need to be made
> If I get this right you are suggesting that two, rather than one, RIRs
has to agree with a simple majority of the ICANN boards request to make
changes to a policy proposal, for the proposal to be sent back to step 1 in
the policy development process. In the event that the ICANN board.
yes.... in the event that ICANN board disagree with the policy proposal, it
should require at least 2 RIR in agreement to take us back to step 1. My
rationale for this is that while a number of 1 out of 4 RIR may be fine as
at the time the agreement was signed. However now that we have 5 RIRs,
ensuring the view of the majority wins is important hence my reason for
suggesting the minor update.

> Personally I would rather see ICANN giving input much earlier in the
process rather than having this power at the very end of the process, so I
think this proposal requires more detailed discussion in all regions to
archive consensus on changes to the Global PDP.
Could you clarify your statement above. Kindly note that I am referring to
global policy proposals that have achieved entire RIR community consensus
and then awaits ICANN board approval.

> Context for reference:
> Refering to the ASO MOU attachment A,
> http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-attachmentA-29oct04.htm
> 9. Within 60 days of receipt of the proposed policy, including such
consultation as may occur in Step 8, the ICANN Board may either:
> accept the proposal by a simple majority vote; or
> reject the proposed policy by a supermajority (2/3) vote; or
> by a simple majority vote request changes to the proposed policy; or
> take no action.
> 10. If the ICANN Board takes no action (that is, fails to take actions
(a), (b) or (c) in Step 9) within the 60-day window, the proposed policy is
deemed to be accepted by the ICANN Board and it becomes global policy.
> In case Step 9 (c), should at least one of the RIRs agree that changes
need to be made, the status of the proposed policy reverts to Step 1.
> If none of the RIRs accept the case for changes, then the proposed policy
continues to Step 11.
> --
> Hans Petter Holen
> Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph at oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
> _______________________________________________
> ianaxfer mailing list
> ianaxfer at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/attachments/20150103/7f8c5e13/attachment.html>

More information about the ianaxfer mailing list