[CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google
tracyhackshaw at gmail.com
Fri Oct 24 11:07:34 UTC 2014
Wow.
Very enlightening indeed Paul. Thank you.
------
Rgds,
Tracy
On Oct 24, 2014 4:33 AM, "Paul M Kane" <Paul.Kane at icb.co.uk> wrote:
> The ccNSO is a valuable forum for those ccTLDs that wish to discuss issues
> and (potentially) be accountable to ICANN and its processes/determinations.
>
> There are many ccTLDs that have never been to a ccNSO meeting, know little
> about ICANN and are accountable to their users under the laws of the
> jurisdiction in which the ccTLD Registry is incorporated and/or the legal
> jurisdiction of the user contracts with the ccTLD Registry.
>
> Unlike gTLDs which specifically obtain their authority to be in the IANA
> ROOT by virtue of a contract with ICANN, the ccTLD Registry falls into (at
> least) two categories. There are ccTLDs that have agreements with ICANN
> and those that do not.
>
> To be specific, 7 have a MoU with ICANN, 9 have a "Sponsorship Agreement"
> with ICANN, 27 have an "Accountability Agreement" with ICANN, 42 have an
> "Exchange of Letters" with ICANN and 170 ccTLDs do not cede authority to
> ICANN.
>
> Best
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote:
>
>>
>> Thank you Peter ... extremely helpful. I assume you also have counted
>> those in LACTLD?
>>
>> So ... 96 ccTLDs could POTENTIALLY not recognize the ccNSO in any future
>> organizational arrangement involving the ccNSO as is being suggested here.
>>
>> That is not insubstantial.
>>
>> I can also imagine that when you factor those that are Government
>> affiliated within these 96 ccTLDs, the issues become quite complex as they
>> relate to these discussions.
>>
>> I wonder if this is the nexus for GAC involvement in future
>> organizational arrangements ...
>>
>> However that will still POTENTIALLY leave some ccTLDs out of the future
>> arrangements being considered here, save for coercing them into joining
>> either the ccNSO or the regional orgs.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> /t
>>
>> On Oct 24, 2014 3:20 AM, "Peter Van Roste" <peter at centr.org <mailto:
>> peter at centr.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Tracy for raising this.
>>
>> Becky is right, this process is open to all ccTLDs. The regional
>> organisations are reaching out to those that are not in the ccNSO
>> and to those that are unaffiliated in their respective regions.
>>
>> However, it should be taken into account when discussing the
>> future role the ccNSO could play, that some ccTLDs will not
>> recognize the ccNSO as a representative of their interests.
>>
>> Some stats:
>>
>> Out of the 248 ccTLDs:
>>
>> 152 are members of the ccNSO. Most of those are also a member of
>> their regional organisation (AfTLD, APTLD, CENTR and APTLD).
>>
>> 38 ccTLDs are members of their regional organisation but not of
>> the ccNSO.
>>
>> 58 ccTLDs are unaffiliated.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Peter Van Roste
>>
>> General Manager, CENTR
>>
>> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
>> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Burr,
>> Becky
>> *Sent:* donderdag 23 oktober 2014 23:37
>> *To:* Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google; Allan MacGillivray
>> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names
>> Community vs the other two communities
>>
>> Some of those who do not participate in the ccNSO do participate
>> in regional organizations such as LACTLD and APTLD. We have also
>> set up a global list to communicate with ccTLDs that don’t
>> participate in either. Note that the ccNSO rules permit cc’s to
>> participate fully without actually joining the ccNSO itself.
>>
>> J. Beckwith Burr
>>
>> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
>>
>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>>
>> Office: + 1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> Mobile:
>> +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / becky.burr at neustar.biz
>> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz
>> <http://www.neustar.biz>
>>
>> *From: *"Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" <tracyhackshaw at gmail.com
>> <mailto:tracyhackshaw at gmail.com>>
>> *Date: *Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 5:31 PM
>> *To: *Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca
>> <mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>>
>> *Cc: *Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz
>> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, Milton L Mueller
>> <mueller at syr.edu <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>>, Guru Acharya
>> <gurcharya at gmail.com <mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com>>,
>> "cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>"
>> <cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
>> *Subject: *Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names
>> Community vs the other two communities
>>
>> What about the ccTLDs who are NOT part of the ccNSO ... has this
>> been discussed/dealt with already?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Allan MacGillivray
>> <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca <mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> So let’s see if I have got this correct. The idea is that the
>> registries would set up a corporation that could contract with
>> IANA, either as a stand-alone entity or as a department of ICANN,
>> for the performance of the IANA functions – let’s call it
>> ‘RegistryCo’ for short. Would there not be liability concerns on
>> the part of many registries to being directors of RegistryCo?
>> Even if they could be convinced, would those ccTLDs that are
>> governments be comfortable with such an approach? And it would
>> need some money to get going. Incorporating does take little
>> money, but negotiating the contract would be quite another issue.
>>
>> *From:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
>> <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>]
>> *Sent:* October-23-14 4:20 PM
>> *To:* Milton L Mueller; Guru Acharya
>> *Cc:* Allan MacGillivray; Fouad Bajwa; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names
>> Community vs the other two communities
>>
>> Correct. In any case, it takes very little time or money to
>> create a light weight legal entity.
>>
>> J Beckwith Burr
>>
>> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
>>
>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>>
>> Office: + 1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B%201.202.5332932> Mobile:
>> +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / becky.burr at neustarbiz
>> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz
>> <http://www.neustar.biz>
>>
>> *From: *Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
>> 3A__mailto-3Amueller-40syr.edu&d=AAMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=
>> 62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=GgzA5SwJogI0ald8wwDSR-
>> ml1BmbWp0LkVsHeAGs0EU&s=ZpmqRGN-6diwUv7gbTulgFXccZAa2eMl5e0pxgIPoEk&e=>>
>> *Date: *Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 3:41 PM
>> *To: *Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com
>> <mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz
>> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>
>> *Cc: *Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca
>> <mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>>, Fouad Bajwa
>> <fouadbajwa at gmail.com <mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com>>,
>> "cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>"
>> <cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
>> *Subject: *RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names
>> Community vs the other two communities
>>
>> No. Guru this is incorrect. Both the CCNSO and the GNSO are made
>> up of mostly incorporated legal entities. Certainly the TLD
>> registries in both entities are legally incorporated.
>>
>> *From:* Guru Acharya [mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com]
>>
>> Even though NFL is an unincorporated association, the 32
>> independent teams that comprise the unincorporated association are
>> legal entities. These 32 legal entities then collectively enter to
>> into pooled-rights contract with any third party.
>>
>> In comparison, CCNSO and GNSO are not legal entities; and they can
>> not form an unincorporated association.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Burr, Becky
>> <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>> wrote:
>>
>> The law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in the
>> US, the question is whether there is an enforceable contract
>> and not whether one of the contracting parties is a formal
>> legal entity. I can assure you, the NFL enforces contracts
>> all the time.
>>
>> J. Beckwith Burr
>>
>> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
>>
>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>>
>> Office: + 1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> Mobile:
>> +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> /
>> becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> /
>> www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
>>
>> *From: *Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca
>> <mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>>
>> *Date: *Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 12:04 PM
>> *To: *Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz
>> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, Milton L Mueller
>> <mueller at syr.edu
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
>> 3A__mailto-3Amueller-40syr.edu&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=
>> 62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=INYMVpabyaFlLICPn_
>> 6grbXytRGxGNbwdxstS1N6kfU&s=xm679ts9ebwDNuRzz6N0a2u03BsoJV
>> 4iMSTlfNWBXKU&e=>>,
>> Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com <mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com>>
>> *Cc: *"cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
>> *Subject: *RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names
>> Community vs the other two communities
>>
>> Becky – you raise a very important point as to whether
>> unincorporated entities can enter into enforceable contracts.
>> If they can, it may simplify things considerably e.g. have
>> ccNSO, GNSO, ALAC? 'take over’ the contact with ICANN. I had
>> been labouring under the assumption that the ccNSO, GNSO would
>> have to incorporate to do this. How can we get clarity on this?
>>
>> Allan
>>
>> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
>> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of
>> *Burr, Becky
>> *Sent:* October-23-14 11:43 AM
>> *To:* Milton L Mueller; Fouad Bajwa
>> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> >
>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names
>> Community vs the other two communities
>>
>> Rather than starting with legal constructs, let’s begin by
>> talking about what we need to accomplish requisite
>> accountability. To me, we need some independent committee,
>> council, unincorporated association, or representative group
>> to have a contract with ICANN/IANA for performing IANA
>> functions consistent with SLA’s to be negotiated and
>> documented. We need this entity, presumably representative of
>> IANA service consumers, to have recourse if the SLA’s are not
>> met.
>>
>> If this is correct, then we can look at what kind of legal
>> entity we need for the “SLA Council.” Seems to me that the
>> core of this group would be registry operators, perhaps with
>> representation from other stakeholders like registstrars,
>> registrants, etc. Could be stand alone or perhaps housed in
>> ISOC or the IETF? I am pretty sure that unincorporated
>> associations can enter into enforceable contracts, etc. (For
>> example, the National Football League in the US is actually an
>> unincorporated association).
>>
>> Second, we need a mechanism that ensure recourse and redress
>> for a registry that is wrongfully revoked, delegated, etc.
>> That mechanism can be provided to all through the ICANN
>> bylaws, e.g., as an independent review.
>>
>> J. Beckwith Burr
>>
>> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
>>
>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>>
>> Office: + 1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> Mobile:
>> +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> /
>> becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> /
>> www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
>>
>> *From: *Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
>> 3A__mailto-3Amueller-40syr.edu&d=AAMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=
>> 62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9jEM_hACGXiATouHvV-V_
>> jUNH5sc3y-bQFzqRD4_qRU&s=WD5mnQGH8gOzXMllT3aJRt_wLg7aZMZR0oiM_ERgS0g&e=>>
>> *Date: *Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 11:17 AM
>> *To: *Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com
>> <mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com>>
>> *Cc: *"cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
>> *Subject: *Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names
>> Community vs the other two communities
>>
>> Fouad:
>>
>> By the “technical community proposals” I assume you mean the
>> protocols community.
>>
>> What your argument misses is that IANA _/is/_ a separate
>> organizational entity for both the numbers and protocols
>> communities.
>>
>> The protocol community has an MoU with ICANN that authorizes
>> ICANN to perform the IANA functions for them. That MoU can be
>> revoked, and IETF can decide to use someone else. That is the
>> perfect accountability mechanism. Now, tell me how the names
>> community achieves that same wonderful state? There are two
>> ways to do it: pull the IANA out of ICANN, or set up a new
>> contracting authority to replace the NTIA, which could
>> periodically award the contract to ICANN or to anyone else
>> qualified.
>>
>> No one wants “the IANA technical and policy functions [might]
>> fall into the hands and whims of governments.” That in fact is
>> a requirement imposed on the transition by the NTIA. But we do
>> need to make significant organizational changes if we are to
>> meet the requirement of accountability. I think scare talk
>> about take overs can divert our attention from needed reforms
>> and I would resist that kind of talk.
>>
>> I don't think that IANA should be evolved as a separate entity
>> at all and create new opportunities for bureaucracies for
>> governments and industry control.
>>
>> The technical community proposals are highly reasonable to not
>> make such a big fuss out of it and help IANA transition under
>> a body that is somewhat messed up but can be improved in the
>> long run however, ICANN would need some changes.
>>
>> The technical community has also shown its concern that it
>> doesn't want the IANA technical and policy function to fall
>> into the hands of the whims of governments because it
>> functions to the technical community's needs adequately in its
>> present environment and role.
>>
>> Your challenge and for the ICG is to propose that most
>> transparent and accountable way forward that ensures an open
>> and inclusive relationship with the Internet community
>> treating stakeholders in their respective roles but not giving
>> preference to one group over another another. I don't have to
>> go through the Internet Governance ideals over and over again
>> here.
>>
>> First ICANN Board control as the final word for IANA affairs
>> would have to be reviewed and should be taken into a broader
>> community review process. I do not trust the ICANN Board to be
>> able to manage both ICANN and IANA in a transparent and
>> accountable way, their progress over the years has had its own
>> set of troubles already.
>>
>> The proposals are interesting but not the final word. The
>> final word will remain with NTIA and thats my concern from a
>> developing country member citizen perspective. I am going
>> through a great deal of suggestions and proposals and all show
>> a similar aspect, don't disturb the IANA technical function
>> and the policies for IANA developed by the community have work
>> so far but require more transparency, accountability and
>> functional relationships with the community ensuring open and
>> inclusive participation in its policy development processes.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Seun Ojedeji
>> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> +1 Option 2 is preferred from my end also. However i also
>> added Option 4 as a second preference just incase things
>> get delayed with the accountability process.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>> <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> you might wish to see an expanded set of "Options", in
>> a Google Doc which has been shared.
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/
>> 1B46mlsyZUFF4bZfeWgGCdqIQHCP2BMOy4KZU4RiRiE8/edit?usp=sharing
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>> 3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1B46mlsyZUFF4bZfeWgGCdqIQHCP2B
>> MOy4KZU4RiRiE8_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=
>> 62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_
>> x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=fUDcpKHcSBfPHc8c3PFUK3EGMl9QAY
>> JOV5JFJEPECSo&e=>
>>
>> So far, I note that the majority of our participants
>> on the At-Large IANA Issues WG appears to prefer Option 2.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>>
>>
>> On 15/10/2014 22:55, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>>
>> FYI
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>
>> *Subject: *
>>
>>
>>
>> [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two
>> communities
>>
>> *Date: *
>>
>>
>>
>> Thu, 16 Oct 2014 02:40:47 +0530
>>
>> *From: *
>>
>>
>>
>> Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com>
>> <mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com>
>>
>> *To: *
>>
>>
>>
>> cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>>
>> 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
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
>> 3A__www.slideshare.net_fullscreen_apnic_report-
>> 2Dianatransition_1&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_
>> GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy0
>> 7cw&s=ipQr6NSV4s2YyeTKtleRzaehK6NnJP70z0QOuy57W7o&e=>
>>
>> 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
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
>> 3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dianaplan-2Dicg-
>> 2Dresponse-2D00&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_
>> GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy0
>> 7cw&s=hsoL84pOSYzJR4QRMfhJYR6ybddmed3Zi1M-kuVH5uQ&e=>
>>
>> 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 toÂ
>> http://www.internetgovernance.
>> org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-iana-transition-the-meissen-
>> proposal/
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
>> 3A__www.internetgovernance.org_2014_08_04_students-
>> 2Dschool-2Dfaculty-2Don-2Diana-2Dtransition-2Dthe-
>> 2Dmeissen-2Dproposal_&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_
>> GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy0
>> 7cw&s=HC19PauLIvR68L1aaQZMUV1ysZRdzy1Rku_FhtwR4P0&e=>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Iana-issues mailing list
>>
>> Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:
>> Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues <
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>> 3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_iana-2Dissues&d=
>> AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_
>> GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy0
>> 7cw&s=z-dUNEELhtQ-yVDbG2261BTmwYXpCqVfPM_t-PljY5Q&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>>
>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html <https://urldefense.
>> proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gih.com_ocl.html&d=
>> AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_
>> GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy0
>> 7cw&s=u0-58tAisZxOIbFv-8rGIWKmmQ0MbrreYyVITk4iFgM&e=>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Iana-issues mailing list
>> Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> <mailto:Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>> 3A__mmicann.org_mailman_listinfo_iana-2Dissues&d=
>> AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_
>> GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy0
>> 7cw&s=z-dUNEELhtQ-yVDbG2261BTmwYXpCqVfPM_t-PljY5Q&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------
>>
>> /Seun Ojedeji,
>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>> web: //http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
>> 3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_
>> GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy0
>> 7cw&s=ZYONh-kEmB5dv3rzYIFWLLSMsZ6JohvhU3mRuNA0IvA&e=>/
>> //Mobile: +2348035233535 <tel:%2B2348035233535>//
>> //alt email://seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng/
>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>
>>
>> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Iana-issues mailing list
>> Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> <mailto:Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>> 3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_iana-2Dissues&d=
>> AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_
>> GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy0
>> 7cw&s=z-dUNEELhtQ-yVDbG2261BTmwYXpCqVfPM_t-PljY5Q&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Regards.
>> --------------------------
>> Fouad Bajwa
>> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
>> My Blog: Internet's Governance:
>> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
>> 3A__internetsgovernance.blogspot.com_&d=AAMGaQ&c=
>> MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k
>> &m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=zkexu-
>> 3haN6fnsOXhCc6YlS9R1_kJqU41Ly9Qg6NDw8&e=>
>> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
>> 3A__twitter.com_fouadbajwa&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_
>> x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=Q41AU5yY9bUlqSxfJs-
>> fCoCh4KuNHdFYeG8IwC5gisw&e=>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>> 3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=
>> AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_
>> GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=INYMVpabyaFlLICPn_
>> 6grbXytRGxGNbwdxstS1N6kfU&s=i8zyWIAX2_rh8EVJjDDnKtCQtxhae8Qqzt-
>> EA16lRiY&e=>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>> 3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=
>> AAMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_
>> GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=GgzA5SwJogI0ald8wwDSR-
>> ml1BmbWp0LkVsHeAGs0EU&s=0knJhHDN8_VTb0SESfSAujo5jrIrLR9bFwC6kRIu9PY&e=>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20141024/a82ca8c4/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list