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

[Seun Ojedeji]

On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kieren at kierenmccarthy.com>
wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> <snip> the explanation is quite on point
>


> 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.
>

Maybe we should not think of how to change the culture (as that may be
beyond scope) but we should think of what we will include in the
MOU/Contract or whatever mechanism that finally suffice. That will ensure
that the community's contribution is noted to improve IANA improve
operation.

>
> 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.
>

+1 and i presume most part of that can also be achieved by policy.

>
> 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.
>

I agree but 'stick' needs to be clearly defined within the MOU/Mechanism.
Remembering there is a stick is usually a good approach to ensure
compliance.

>
> 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.
>

Correct and usually what may cause more of the delay in getting the records
updated could be the intermediate processes which the community should look
into as i don't think that will be within the scope of this cwg. However as
you have said earlier, we need to include the necessary clauses/mechanism
that enables the community's consensus based suggestions to be recognised
by the IANA operator.

Thanks

Cheers!

>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141101/59551e5f/attachment.html>