[Icg-forum] CWG-Stewardship propsal

Richard Hill rhill at hill-a.ch
Thu Jun 25 16:28:24 UTC 2015

I refer to the CWG-Stewardship Response to the ICG RFP, see:


That message states:

"calls or meetings, 4,000 email messages and at least 5,000 volunteer hours.
The Final Proposal represents a carefully crafted balance between key
requirements, specific legal advice and significant compromises by all who
participated. It includes diligent attention to the input of 115 comments
received through the Public Comment proceedings. Prior to submitting to the
Chartering Organizations or their approval, the Final Proposal received the
consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship itself, with no objections or
minority statements recorded."

As far as I can tell, that statement is factually correct.

But it fails to state that the Final Proposal was not submitted for public
comment, and that at least some of the 115 input comments made on the draft
proposal were not accommodated in the Final Proposal.  That is, all the
comments were considered, but at least some of them were rejected.

In particular, as detailed below, many of my comments were dismissed.

Thus, while the Final Proposal represents the consensus of the
CWG-Stewardship itself, it does not necessarily represent the consensus of
the global multi-stakeholder community. Indeed, as I have pointed out
previously, CWG-Stewardship is an ICANN group, constituted under ICANN
rules, so it cannot be considered to be representative of the global
multi-stakeholder community.

Further, the proposal is conditional on changes in ICANN's accountability,
which have not yet been approved. Thus it would be premature to approve the

Regarding the substance of the proposal, it can be characterized as "much
ado about nothing": it uses many pages of very detailed text to enshrine the
status quo, apart from accountability changes mentioned in paragraph 106.
PTI will be fully controlled by ICANN, so there is no meaningful separation
and no real change with respect to the current situation. In particular,
there will be no change in jurisdiction, so PTI will be subject to US law,
as is the case today for the IANA function. This means that, in effect, the
United States maintains its asymmetric role with respect to the management
of domain names and addresses (PTI would have to obey US court orders and US
laws), thus negating the objective of internationalizing the management of
Internet domain names and addresses.

Thus, in my view, that Final Proposal does not represent the consensus of
the global multi-stakeholder community.

Having carefully reviewed the Final Proposal, I formally object to it for
the reasons detailed in the attached PDF file. 

Consequently, I request that the ICG return to proposal to the

Richard Hill


Detail of treatment of my comments on the draft CWG-Stewardship proposal.

I refer to the summary of the comments, and their treatment, published at:


My comments below refer to the comment numbers shown in the document cited

Comments 1 and 102: the response does not in fact provide the requested
detail, so it is in effect a dismissal of the comment.

Comments 103, 143, 285, 342, 346, 348, and 363: the response does not
address the issues that I raised, so in effect my comments have been

Comments 285 and 342: the response refuses to consider the issue of
jurisdiction. As I have stated repeatedly before, the issue of jurisdiction
is important, in fact critical. My comments regarding this critical issue
have been dismissed. 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IANA CWG-Stewardship comment.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 73899 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/attachments/20150625/3459ce38/attachment.pdf>

More information about the Icg-forum mailing list