[CWG-Stewardship] Concern with Contract Co.

[Mary Uduma]

All,First, I want to appreciate the hard and excellent job done so far by the CWG. The proposal and processes laid out are so very good.  However, I wish to raise one or two issues.  
I wish to support most of the concerns expressed by Alan Greenberg and his thoughtful suggestions.
Specifically:Contract Co:  the jurisdictional questions as had been raised in this thread makes it less attractive as the way to go.  
Question: Is this a multi-stakeholder entity? 
General acceptability by the internet community may be difficult to sell considering the heightened awareness in most governments ( ie ccTLDs) regarding the IANA relationship and the position of NTIA in representing governments in the functions.I believe a less legal formal entity operating a bottom up process would  not only meet the NTIA requirements but also give the internet community the opportunity to be part of the MoU agreement with IANA functions Operator.Question:Who is the ultimate supervisor (Regulator) of this entity? - US government?

Alteration of ICANN Bylaws
It would be worth the while exploring further Allan's suggestions. I wish to suggest a small addition of reducing the ICANN Board membership tenor to one term of 2years only, instead of current 9years and counting that members seat on the Board. One may argue on continuity, however since policies would be made at the ACs, SOs and also national levels by ccTLDs the Board would implement such policies.  This is somehow close to what IETF does with IANA functions operator.
To me, the current proposal seems over blotted. Let the contract be replaced by MoU between the IANA operator and the affected and interested persons of the services rendered by IANA.

Let the mechanism  be multi-stakeholder in approach and form.  Rotate membership of Board on 2-yrly basis.  Let there be an independent evaluator for IANA core functions and report submitted to the PRT (Steering Committee on IANA Function) as proposed, including ICANN itself.My second point is on the CSC. I think this should be just a subcommittee of PRT. Participants 
of CSC  should not be only those that can pay for themselves. Again full automation of IANA functions would surely reduce the burden of this committee.

Mary Uduma




















 

     On Saturday, November 29, 2014 6:55 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
   

 It's not quite as black and white as that.  The RFP does suggest some level of communication (though not necessarily coordination) between the different communities, which we should probably consider.  While we are not supposed to be designing a holistic solution, this is not some sort of "locked room" exercise either.
Greg
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

  
 On 28-Nov-14 19:36, Milton L Mueller wrote:
  
 Is the option of having separate complementary contracts by the different users of the IANA functions off the table?

MM: By “different users of the IANA functions” do you mean the names, protocols and numbers users? If so I would admonish you again to stick to the knitting of this group, which is focused on names. We are not holistically redesigning the IANA arrangements we are focused on the names part exclusively.
 
 
 In fact the ICG has done its best to make sure we don't have complementary solutions as the first decision they made on how the process and hence solution should be designed.
 
 It is a coordinators' decision that seems to have been made that most all have just accepted.
 
 avri
 
 
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship





-- 
Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab666 Third Avenue ï New York, NY 10017-5621Direct  212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022Fax  212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428gsshatan at lawabel.comICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com www.lawabel.com
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141129/151a0843/attachment-0001.html>