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

Hans Petter Holen hph at oslo.net
Sun Jan 4 11:16:30 CET 2015


Hi Seun,

On 03.01.15 19.17, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> >
>
> > 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.
>

It was simply my interpretation is from reading the charter and the RFP.
I can see that if you argue that if the gPDP needs to be changed because 
the NTIA steps out, that it would be within scope, but as far as I have 
been able to etablish in the past the NTIA has no role in number policy.

Hence my interpretation.

> > 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?
>
My experience has been that for any change, it is easier to get the 
change done, and archive consensus for what is needed, if the scope is 
sufficiently narrow.

A better time, in my opinion, would be any other time.

As for formal process I am not sure. Some will suggest to use the gPDP 
to change the gPDP - but I do not think that has been specified. Formaly 
it is in the MOU between ICANN and the RIRs so it would have to be an 
update to the MOU.

> > 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.
>

Adding the SLA to the MOU in my mind ties the role of ICANN as final 
policy endorser and ICANN as IANA operator togehter.  I belive the two 
should be separate.

> > 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.
>

So this is really related to #RIRs increasing from 4 to 5 rather than 
the NTIA transition.

> > 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.
>

In the RIPE Policy development process, and I believe it is the same in 
the other regions, there is a point in time, where the RIPE NCC 
publishes an Impact analysis of the proposal so this can be part of the 
discussion by the community.

I think it would be better if the IANA operator/ICANN would give its 
input at this stage for Global policy proposals.

When the proposal is past the ASO AC - it is - in my opinion - past 
changes - it should only be possible to send it back if process has not 
been followed - and in my opinion that should be done by the ASO AC

Hans Petter



> Regards
> >
> > 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 <mailto:hph at oslo.net> | 
> http://hph.oslo.net
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ianaxfer mailing list
> > ianaxfer at nro.net <mailto:ianaxfer at nro.net>
> > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
> >
>


-- 
Hans Petter Holen
Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph at oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/attachments/20150104/0523e465/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ianaxfer mailing list