[CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities

[Guru Acharya]

I agree with what Chuck has to say. We should deliberate on all options
before we decide.

Please do suggest other options so that we can discuss them as well.

Thanks,
Acharya

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

>  Forgive me for being slow but it is not obvious to me that option 1
> makes sense, i.e., ‘create a new legal entity’.  I see it as one option,
> but before we decide it is the best option we should explore as many
> options as possible.  Even if we eliminate the other options mentioned
> below, we should not assume that we have considered all possible options.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Krishna Seeburn
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 15, 2014 5:30 PM
> *To:* Guru Acharya
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two
> communities
>
>
>
> Thanks for those acharya.
>
>
>
> IETF and the RIRs were already working in that direction from the very
> start and even before the official formal announcement from icann / ntia.
> These were already talks and were well ahead of anything.
>
>
>
> The option 1 makes sense and in fact i am wondering how much more talks we
> will have before we can decide on what is more than obvious.
>
>
>
> The names community however have a different but more challenging
> approach. As much as we are technical but we have a different impact on the
> community. Our challenges are way different for sure.
>
>
>
> But good thinking .., perhaps yes a good way forward. But a consensus in
> way forward is what matters and we all need to agree and that is the bigger
> challenge. In whatever we come up with we will need a mid platform to agree
> with everyone to some point.
>
>
>
> My 2 cents
>
>
> *Kris Seeburn*
>
> skype: kris_seeburn30
>
> Linkedin:mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn
>
>
> On Oct 16, 2014, at 1:10 AM, Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   How the names community approach will differ from the approach adopted
> by the numbers community and protocols community?
>
>
>
> Numbers Community: APNIC has reached consensus on its proposal. According
> to the proposal, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN. It proposes to
> replace NTIA oversight with a Service Level Agreement (SLA) and Affirmation
> of Commitment (AOC) between NRO and ICANN.
>
> www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1
>
>
>
> Protocols Community: The IETF draft proposal suggests that no structural
> changes are required as a result of the transition. The MOU between ICANN
> and the IETF community will continue to govern the existing relationship.
> Again, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00
>
>
>
> Therefore, neither the numbers community, nor the protocol community
> appear to be in the direction of suggesting a new MS Oversight Entity to
> replace NTIA and its oversight. Merely contracts between existing entities
> will be updated to replace NTIA oversight.
>
>
>
> Can the names community adopt a similar approach? Can a contractual
> agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO be expected to replace
> NTIA oversight?
>
>
>
> Clearly NO! This approach can not be adopted by the names community
> because the names community resides within ICANN, which is also the IANA
> operator. Specifically, GNSO and CCNSO are essentially subsets of ICANN,
> and therefore a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and
> GNSO/CCNSO can not be expected to replace NTIA oversight.
>
>
>
> Therefore, it is essential to either
>
>
>
> Option (i): create a new legal entity, which has a contractual oversight
> relationship with ICANN. This would be similar to
> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-iana-transition-the-meissen-proposal/
>
>
>
> Option (ii): expect ICANN to self-regulate
>
>
>
> Option (iii): make a new legal entity comprising of CCNSO and GNSO that is
> structurally independent of ICANN and require that new entity to enter into
> a contractual oversight agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) with ICANN.
>
>
>
> From the above three options, clearly option (ii) is not acceptable
> because of the lack of trust in the ICANN enhanced accountability process.
>
>
>
> I also feel that option (iii) is not feasible because the CCNSO and GNSO
> are heavily integrated with ICANN and structural separation of these two
> communities from ICANN will be in-feasible.
>
>
>
> Also, from the Jordan Carter document, the option on page 7 can be
> discarded, which makes ICANN the oversight body, as IANA will continue to
> reside in ICANN, as clearly suggested by the proposals of the protocols and
> numbers community.
>
>
>
> Therefore, option (i) is clearly the only option available with the names
> community.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Acharya
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> 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/20141016/d1841325/attachment.html>