[CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
Burr, Becky
Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
Fri Oct 24 14:00:30 UTC 2014
I’m not sure why this wasn’t clear, but I agree with Peter that the ccNSO is not, on its own, representative of all ccTLDs. Specifically, some ccTLDs that do not participate in the ccNSO do participate in regional organizations, which is why those must be included. My understanding is that in addition there are some ccTLDs who don’t participate in either forum, so we would need to account for that.
J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz
From: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>
Date: Friday, October 24, 2014 at 9:32 AM
To: "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" <tracyhackshaw at gmail.com<mailto:tracyhackshaw 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
On the subject of non-participating ccTLD’s, would bringing the proposed organisational change that would bring control to an independent entity really change anything in the status quo? If these ccTLD’s are not participating within the current structure are they likely to change that stance with a new IANA entity?
If the future organisational change remains open to their participation and/or input then from that organisations standpoint there would be no change from the current situation?
While improvement of the process is a component of the transition if they do not wish to change from their current stance then I don’t see why this would become an issue?
Maybe Im missing a key point here?
James
On 24 Oct 2014, at 12:07, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google <tracyhackshaw at gmail.com<mailto:tracyhackshaw at gmail.com>> wrote:
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<mailto: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> <mailto: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>>
[mailto: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> <mailto: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> <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> Mobile:
+1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>
<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
<http://www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>>
*From: *"Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" <tracyhackshaw at gmail.com<mailto:tracyhackshaw at gmail.com>
<mailto: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>
<mailto: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>
<mailto: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=AAMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ywafUHoi6i6pOm8gv0t97tvPuY5gpSnalUwXbUbMp1w&s=FpF7I88o7PkrhbFKaaSJMpFjOxiyNasPrd5GblmAKHc&e=> <mailto:mueller at syr.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailto-3Amueller-40syr.edu&d=AAMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ywafUHoi6i6pOm8gv0t97tvPuY5gpSnalUwXbUbMp1w&s=FpF7I88o7PkrhbFKaaSJMpFjOxiyNasPrd5GblmAKHc&e=>>>, Guru Acharya
<gurcharya at gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com> <mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com>>>,
"cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>"
<cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> <mailto: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> <mailto: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>
<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>
<mailto: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%201.202.533.2932> <tel:%2B%201.202.5332932> Mobile:
+1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / becky.burr at neustarbiz
<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
<http://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=AAMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ywafUHoi6i6pOm8gv0t97tvPuY5gpSnalUwXbUbMp1w&s=FpF7I88o7PkrhbFKaaSJMpFjOxiyNasPrd5GblmAKHc&e=>
<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>
<mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com>>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>
<mailto: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>
<mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>>>, Fouad Bajwa
<fouadbajwa at gmail.com<mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com> <mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com<mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com>>>,
"cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>"
<cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> <mailto: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<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> <mailto: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> <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> Mobile:
+1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> /
becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>> /
www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> <http://www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>>
*From: *Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>
<mailto: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>
<mailto: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=AAMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ywafUHoi6i6pOm8gv0t97tvPuY5gpSnalUwXbUbMp1w&s=FpF7I88o7PkrhbFKaaSJMpFjOxiyNasPrd5GblmAKHc&e=>
<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=xm679ts9ebwDNuRzz6N0a2u03BsoJV4iMSTlfNWBXKU&e=>>,
Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com<mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com> <mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com<mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com>>>
*Cc: *"cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
<mailto: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<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:* October-23-14 11:43 AM
*To:* Milton L Mueller; Fouad Bajwa
*Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> <mailto: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> <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> Mobile:
+1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> /
becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>> /
www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> <http://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=AAMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ywafUHoi6i6pOm8gv0t97tvPuY5gpSnalUwXbUbMp1w&s=FpF7I88o7PkrhbFKaaSJMpFjOxiyNasPrd5GblmAKHc&e=>
<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>
<mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com<mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com>>>
*Cc: *"cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
<mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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_1B46mlsyZUFF4bZfeWgGCdqIQHCP2BMOy4KZU4RiRiE8_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=AAMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ywafUHoi6i6pOm8gv0t97tvPuY5gpSnalUwXbUbMp1w&s=YlmceCglNvlNSJ3TGzs-bXBNjU3PAfKIjCW39DYrspU&e=>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1B46mlsyZUFF4bZfeWgGCdqIQHCP2BMOy4KZU4RiRiE8_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=fUDcpKHcSBfPHc8c3PFUK3EGMl9QAYJOV5JFJEPECSo&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>>
<mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com>>
*To: *
cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
<mailto: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=AAMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ywafUHoi6i6pOm8gv0t97tvPuY5gpSnalUwXbUbMp1w&s=dzsxbIHPJOQgHDYY87DNHzP_Ko4BKIPLAHTbOAM3kzY&e=>
<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_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&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=AAMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ywafUHoi6i6pOm8gv0t97tvPuY5gpSnalUwXbUbMp1w&s=UaWyH-7M9L-J-5cJF33-fKg5o-ihJF4zwGhFfNlOsNY&e=>
<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_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&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=AAMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ywafUHoi6i6pOm8gv0t97tvPuY5gpSnalUwXbUbMp1w&s=NWqJwYhiR1usVqRAoUlkEGwb4SPhJgf8Yy4mRd5Lzj8&e=>
<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_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&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> <mailto: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=AAMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ywafUHoi6i6pOm8gv0t97tvPuY5gpSnalUwXbUbMp1w&s=3uOGAnl7hwNgtugHRCTTfEfXLf1HgFaedNJvlkgY-U4&e=> <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_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&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=AAMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ywafUHoi6i6pOm8gv0t97tvPuY5gpSnalUwXbUbMp1w&s=-wRSy2YD0lZi_poMzmBkg78tWDqpYgxi4y4L1irJT8U&e=> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gih.com_ocl.html&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=u0-58tAisZxOIbFv-8rGIWKmmQ0MbrreYyVITk4iFgM&e=>
_______________________________________________
Iana-issues mailing list
Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
<mailto: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=AAMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ywafUHoi6i6pOm8gv0t97tvPuY5gpSnalUwXbUbMp1w&s=3uOGAnl7hwNgtugHRCTTfEfXLf1HgFaedNJvlkgY-U4&e=>
<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_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&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=AAMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ywafUHoi6i6pOm8gv0t97tvPuY5gpSnalUwXbUbMp1w&s=vYf1cel3R2Z6G6j2C-oFGCReKFCX4_3bwgLmEmzd4F8&e=>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=ZYONh-kEmB5dv3rzYIFWLLSMsZ6JohvhU3mRuNA0IvA&e=>/
//Mobile: +2348035233535<tel:%2B2348035233535> <tel:%2B2348035233535>//
//alt email://seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__seun.ojedeji-40fuoye.edu.ng_&d=AAMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ywafUHoi6i6pOm8gv0t97tvPuY5gpSnalUwXbUbMp1w&s=4fiBOFbPnoQDnRwO2OSbied1yYGKQSgV2QXlXZGeFZ4&e=>
<mailto:seun.ojedeji at 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>
<mailto: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=AAMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ywafUHoi6i6pOm8gv0t97tvPuY5gpSnalUwXbUbMp1w&s=3uOGAnl7hwNgtugHRCTTfEfXLf1HgFaedNJvlkgY-U4&e=>
<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_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&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=AAMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ywafUHoi6i6pOm8gv0t97tvPuY5gpSnalUwXbUbMp1w&s=_V7czCoZtUMEDN0LjM7v38tgt6PDWWbeIhCQsH7T0yg&e=>
<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=AAMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ywafUHoi6i6pOm8gv0t97tvPuY5gpSnalUwXbUbMp1w&s=Om6kPbl4cHNIHVcVV2wm7cX-JkGCUbQXt0CFbhPLtaU&e=>
<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> <mailto: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=AAMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ywafUHoi6i6pOm8gv0t97tvPuY5gpSnalUwXbUbMp1w&s=jLMz8UkmMnZIs0ud0aEp4Nj6M7z2D6jeYU0W7UVq6Qw&e=>
<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> <mailto: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=AAMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ywafUHoi6i6pOm8gv0t97tvPuY5gpSnalUwXbUbMp1w&s=jLMz8UkmMnZIs0ud0aEp4Nj6M7z2D6jeYU0W7UVq6Qw&e=>
<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<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=AAMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ywafUHoi6i6pOm8gv0t97tvPuY5gpSnalUwXbUbMp1w&s=jLMz8UkmMnZIs0ud0aEp4Nj6M7z2D6jeYU0W7UVq6Qw&e=>
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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/20141024/512f87d8/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list