[CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities

[Kieren McCarthy]

Hello all,

I've been giving some thought to the issue of an Oversight Council, or
whatever you choose to call it.

One of the most persistent issues with IANA has been that it is not very
good at self-improvement.

We could debate why but at this stage it's not that important. The fact is
that IANA has had to be forced to improve itself (as opposed to just keep
doing what it's always done in the same way for years).

There was the whole eIANA issue where outside bodies developed new software
for a better IANA system and then had to push it for over a year as well as
provide it for free to ICANN before it was finally accepted (and not before
IANA felt sufficiently threatened that it developed a weak alternative as a
way of saying 'we don't need this'.)

There was the extreme unhappiness with how and how fast IANA functions were
being carried out and the fact there was literally no information coming
out. That was only resolved when David Conrad was sent in to fix things (a
system reliant on finding a new David Conrad every five years is doomed).

Then there was the whole NTIA rebid and new contract where a large number
of improvement clauses were written into the new contract in order to force
improvements that the community had been asking for for years (improvements
developed through a rebid process that asked the internet community what
changes they wished to see).

My point is that for whatever reason the 'customers' of IANA are not
treated as organizations that IANA is striving to keep happy. They are
locked in and pretty much have to deal with whatever they are given. Hence
stagnation.

Since this transition period is the one opportunity that the customers of
IANA have to build a system that will serve them better in future, it is
worth thinking about how to shift the culture.

The day-to-day of an Oversight Committee would likely be checking policies
are being followed. But there also needs to be a mechanism/culture that
encourages IANA to continuously improve based not on its or ICANN's agenda
but on what its customers want.

The committee would need a stick and a carrot. ICANN /IANA would have to be
obliged to make improvements (like clauses in a new contract) but the
emphasis should be on how to reward improvements so the stick is not needed.

IANA is not a stationary function and I think it would be smart to
recognise that. I am concerned that because we have a lot of policy people
and process people here but not many business folk that this group may draw
up wonderful new structures that just add more process rather than focus on
making the IANA functions a very efficient machine with happy customers.

Philosophical and conceptual issues aside, the bulk of IANA's Names work
always be making changes and/or additions in response to existing
customers' requests.


Kieren


On Thursday, October 30, 2014, Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com> wrote:

> True Maarten.
>
> We should think deeply about a mechanism that will be as  neutral  in the
> stewardship oversight service delivery as the  NTIA and at the same time
> has the legal enforceable powers to contract the IANA function operator.
>
> Putting on my regulator hat, I think it may perhaps be best to have more
> of the non-direct customers of IANA functions in  the "council" ("SLA
> council") than the operational communities. Still not sure of the name.
>
> My feeling is that non-operators as the Overseer of the IANA function
> operator would gain more acceptability to all concerned than replicating
> what we have in ICANN with all the attendant accountability questions.
>
> Mary Uduma
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141101/01788783/attachment.html>