[CWG-Stewardship] Names Community Organising Outside ICANN

Thu Oct 23 22:09:25 UTC 2014

Hi,
I think, formation of ICG, independent of ICANN with its present modus
operand enough and a good model, for transfering from NTIA.  But, if that's
to be adopted, should there bylaw?

Regards
On Oct 23, 2014 4:26 PM, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> There is a lot of sense in here.
>
> Its very close to what I personally feel that IANA at this stage
> should not evolve into a separate entity without a good deal of
> working that is not achievable in an open community process by
> September 2015 however if a clause for separability was developed and
> kept in the proposal and then later and somehow a consensus process or
> approach was to approve such, it can be considered.
>
> Lets strip it out of ICANN isn't workable and I would not support it.
> The proposal should show a way forward for the longterm and that
> should include a mechanism (however hard it may be). One fact remains,
> ICANN is a non-profit under US law. Putting IANA completely under it
> is again prone to law affects on ICANN and vice versa. That discussion
> has somehow disappeared to the ATRT process.
>
> For the IANA function transition in an open and inclusive manner, it
> does have to move out of under ICANN's complete remit, but how,
> remains the big question.
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I forward below a vital discussion that is happening outside CWG but
> relates
> > to the names proposal.
> >
> > I've added Avri's suggestion as Option 5 here:
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B46mlsyZUFF4bZfeWgGCdqIQHCP2BMOy4KZU4RiRiE8/edit?usp=sharing
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> > Date: Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:07 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ianatransition] [] A thought re accountability...
> > To: ianatransition at icann.org
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Well if the GNSO and ccNSO can't leave ICANN, maybe the IANA could leave
> if
> > necessary.  Wasn't that always the point of the NTIA being able to
> transfer
> > the contract?  So if we want to keep things similar, we need to maintain
> the
> > ability for the contract to move from ICANN to another organization, or
> > perhaps to a standalone organization.  We need 'separability' of the IANA
> > function to remain one of its attributes.
> >
> > Stability and security demand that it stay where it is for the moment.
> But
> > I believe that one outcome of the transition should be that it remains as
> > separable as it is now.  It  must be separable from ICANN if things go
> > badly.  Just as IETF can move its data to somewhere else it the
> relationship
> > with ICANN turns sour, the GNSO and ccNSO should be able to move their
> data
> > to somewhere else.  Personally I do not believe multiple little IANAs is
> the
> > best solution so perhaps we need something similar to the ICG on a
> periodic
> > basis (e.g. 5 years) to be created from the various parts of the
> community
> > to review the performance, the audit reports, consultation based evidence
> > &c. and to decide whether changes are required.  These changes could be
> > minor fixes or could be major and involve transfering the responsibility.
> >
> > Such a mechanism based solution would be easier to craft than one that
> > invovles creating yet another permanent superstructure that serves the
> same
> > set of stakeholders involved in the current operational communities.  The
> > idea that we would create an oversight for ICANN somewhat like ICANN
> itself
> > reminds me of tortoises stacked on the backs of tortoises all the way up
> as
> > we reach for true accountabity.  It would also not create a new
> organization
> > with the risk that brings of recapitulating ICANNs all the way up.
> >
> > A separability mechanism gives the GNSO and ccNSO the same ability that
> the
> > IETF and the RIRs have of finding another provider if necessary.  And
> > working together with the advice and participation of global
> stakeholders, a
> > decision can be made periodically on whether it has become necessary to
> do
> > so.  One thing we have to remember, it is not ICANN the corporation that
> is
> > the operational policy community for names.  It is the GNSO and the ccNSO
> > and the advising AC's that are.  Just as the ICG does not require the
> ICANN
> > Board's approval before sending its decision to the NTIA, so to this
> > periodic review committee of IETF, RIRs, GNSO ccNSO and related policy
> > advice mechanisms from the I* ecosystem, like ISOC, ALAC, GAC, SSAC,
> RSSAC,
> > & others, would not require ICANN Board approval to move the IANA
> function.
> >
> > There may be some legal issues to be resolved in the creation of such a
> > mechanism, again the problem of how does one make ICANN corporate do what
> > ICANN corporate doesn't want to do.  Perhaps the construction of an IANA
> > trust to hold the contract, could solve that problem.
> >
> > Just a thought.
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> >
> > On 18-Oct-14 12:39, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >
> > I'm not Jordan but will answer this anyway ;-)
> >
> > I would say it is _possible_.
> >
> > The problem is that moving GNSO and CCNSO out of ICANN at this point
> would
> > involve such a complex set of organizational arrangements and such
> > destabilizing potential for power shifts among the stakeholder groups
> > involved that it could not be contemplated within anything like the time
> > frame we have.
> > Would it involve the creation of a new board? What would happen to GAC
> and
> > ALAC? Just 2 examples of the kind of knotty questions that would have to
> be
> > answered.
> >
> > --MM
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > On Oct 15, 2014, at 3:18 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> > wrote:
> >
> > If we are going to have a successful transition, it's really important
> for
> > the
> >
> > numbers and protocols folks to understand that:
> >
> > ...
> > b) the names people cannot copy number/protocol accountability
> > mechanisms because they aren't organised outside ICANN
> > c) it isn't possible for names to organise outside ICANN in the way
> > numbers/protocol people do
> >
> > Jordan -
> >
> >    Could you elaborate on why "c" isn't possible?
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > On Oct 15, 2014, at 3:18 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > A thought that has been bubbling away here at ICANN LA this week for me:
> >
> > If we are going to have a successful transition, it's really important
> for
> > the numbers and protocols folks to understand that:
> >
> > a) they have superior accountability situations to the names people today
> > b) the names people cannot copy number/protocol accountability mechanisms
> > because they aren't organised outside ICANN
> > c) it isn't possible for names to organise outside ICANN in the way
> > numbers/protocol people do
> > d) there may need to be structural changes or new bodies to provide a
> > workable settlement for names
> > e) without a workable settlement for names, there isn't going to be a
> > transition.
> >
> > I raise this now because both for numbers and protocols there's a clear
> > direction to try and rule out any institutional changes.
> >
> > I strongly caution against any part of the community being dogmatic about
> > any of these, because it will a) attract some attention that'll risk the
> > whole transition process failing (esp. from governments), and b) means
> that
> > a negotiated outcome is harder to achieve, also risking failure.
> >
> > Wonder how others feel about this.
> >
> > cheers
> > Jordan
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ianatransition mailing list
> > ianatransition at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141023/ea041410/attachment-0001.html>