[ccwg-internet-governance] FW: [discuss] ICANN proposal for NTIA transition published
Shatan, Gregory S.
GShatan at reedsmith.com
Wed Apr 9 04:53:37 UTC 2014
Larry Strickling promised that he would not "put his thumb on the scales" during this process. From Fadi's first presentation on Monday in Singapore, it was clear that Fadi was taking a more "sculptural" approach.... For example, at some point that day, he said that ICANN's role in the performance of the IANA function "will not change." Well, maybe, but also ... maybe not.
I am not necessarily opposed to a "minimalist" outcome for the IANA transition, but this is not about the result, this is about the process. (I think Fadi said something like that, too.) And so far, the process has thumbprints all over it.
Whatever the result, the bottom up, consensus driven multistakeholder process demands that we start with all the proposed options on the table, as "slow" and "messy" as that may make the process. If we can't get the multistakeholder process right in designing the process, how can we do so in coming to a result, or in the operation of a multistakeholder oversight model/mechanism/body when the dust settles?
From: ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 12:18 AM
To: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] FW: [discuss] ICANN proposal for NTIA transition published
ICANN has posted its output summary of the community input received during and after Singapore. Unfortunately, ICANN has decided to dictate scope and again ignore the bottom-up, consensus multi-stakeholder process. Apparently, only "accountability" is on the table for discussion. This is a LONG way from the language in NTIA's announcement, FAQs and Larry Strickling's comments at numerous sessions in Singapore, all of which tasked ICANN with convening a multi-stakeholder community process and said nothing about dictating limitation on scope.
On Apr 8, 2014, at 9:42 PM, "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan at reedsmith.com<mailto:GShatan at reedsmith.com>> wrote:
See below - even though this is outside the scope of our CCWG.... :)
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org<mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 9:38 PM
To: discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
Subject: [discuss] ICANN proposal for NTIA transition published
ICANN has released its proposal for the transition dialogue re NTIA DNS functions.
The page and material is at http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08apr14-en.htm.
This page includes the principles and mechanisms and seeks comment on these, as well as a process that involves an ICANN community steering group with an ICANN secretariat to help the discussion along.
Scope is set out in a paper linked from this page at http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/iana-transition-scoping-08apr14-en.pdf
On a very cursory and initial read, the scope appears to not account properly for the broad oversight or stewardship functions of the NTIA in respect of the DNS, and rules out discussion of IANA being operated by ICANN as part of the conversation.
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* * *
This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation.
* * *
To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ccwg-internet-governance