[CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities

Mon Oct 27 21:50:34 UTC 2014

Hi,

Is it necessary for further clarifications from GAC or perhaps Heather?

Regards
Wale

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net>
wrote:

> Hi
>
> I think we all agree that GAC is already part of the MSM - and the NTIA
> would most likely be concerned if a body like GAC were NOT part of the MSM.
> And GAC  does manage - as a whole - to work through to a position on issues
> of concern to all of them.  On that basis, the whole of GAC has always been
> happy to have someone like Heather to speak on their behalf, when they have
> followed due process within their structure, to come to an agreed position.
> Otherwise, noone in GAC (or otherwise) can speak for individual countries.
> But then I imagine there would be difficulties if one registry tried to
> speak on behalf of all registries without following GNSO  processes.
>
> Holly
>
>
> On 28 Oct 2014, at 7:49 am, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I agree with Seul in the fact that govts will need to be part of the whole
> multi-stakeholder, equal basis equation. The challenge will be who in the
> GAC will be part of this group where one government can not represent
> another.
>
> -ed
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Donna Austin <
>> Donna.Austin at ariservices.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  Becky, all
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can someone explain to me how GAC participation/involvement in an
>>> Oversight Council is considered in the context of the NTIA provision that
>>> “… the NTIA will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a
>>> government-led or an inter-governmental organisation solution.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m just trying to understand the distinction being made here. Is a
>>> solution that allows government participation on an equal basis as others,
>>> viable?
>>>
>>
>> IMHO "On Equal basis" should qualify.....not doubt govt has to be
>> involved in this process and they already are (through the GAC) so i will
>> also expect any oversight that comes to emerge to include them. This is one
>> of the reason why i think the oversight needs to be transferred to the
>> existing communities as much as possible. Getting a multistakeholder
>> oversight beyond the walls of existing ICANN community could just be as
>> complicated.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Donna
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <image001.png>*D**ONNA AUSTIN*
>>>
>>> Policy and Industry Affairs Manager
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *ARI REGISTRY SERVICES*
>>> Melbourne *|* Los Angeles
>>> *P*  +1 310 890 9655
>>> *P*  +61 3 9866 3710
>>> *E*  donna.austin at ariservices.com
>>> *W*  www.ariservices.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Follow us on **Twitter* <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *The information contained in this communication is intended for the
>>> named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally
>>> privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended
>>> recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance
>>> on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all
>>> copies from your system and notify us immediately.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
>>> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Burr, Becky
>>> *Sent:* Friday, 24 October 2014 7:20 AM
>>> *To:* Carolina Aguerre; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs
>>> the other two communities
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tracy,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> First, the total number of completely unaffiliated ccTLDs is somewhere
>>> around 58, not 96.  I suspect that a few of these aren’t actually
>>> delegated, so probably a bit less.  But do we think that all gTLDs
>>> participate in the gNSO?  That would really surprise me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Second, why couldn’t those that are completely unaffiliated and prefer
>>> to remain that way participate directly (I.e., without the ccNSO or the
>>> regional organization as an intermediary?)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Finally, I don’t know why this creates the nexus for GAC in future
>>> arrangements?  Some ccTLDs operate under government contracts (for example,
>>> .US).  Our participation in a User’s Council might be affected by the
>>> contract, but I don’t think that means the Department of Commerce should
>>> (or would want to be) a member of the Council.  In a relatively small
>>> number of cases, a government institution actually operates the ccTLD.  In
>>> that case, the government would be a direct consumer of IANA services.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Don’t get me wrong, if the notion is that the GAC would have a seat on
>>> the Council, I suppose I wouldn’t object, but in my experience members of
>>> the GAC represent their OWN governments, not the GAC generally.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> B
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 / www.neustar.biz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *Carolina Aguerre <carolina at lactld.org>
>>> *Date: *Friday, October 24, 2014 at 6:50 AM
>>> *To: *"cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs
>>> the other two communities
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Tracy,
>>>
>>> Indeed the numbers raised by Peter are global, thus including the LAC
>>> region and LACTLD
>>>
>>> Carolina
>>>
>>> On 24/10/2014 05:03 a.m., 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> 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] *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
>>> *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  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  /
>>> becky.burr at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *"Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" <tracyhackshaw at gmail.com>
>>> *Date: *Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 5:31 PM
>>> *To: *Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>
>>> *Cc: *Becky Burr <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=AAMD-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=QpQAt_piuchJf9ejWDh3H_z119DN4HT2HzMk0YusRzw&s=MfTsSXzXbuHI0rFcHtnorPW-C4XKghU8vC-r39Erl4M&e=>>,
>>> Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com>, "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <
>>> 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> 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]
>>> *Sent:* October-23-14 4:20 PM
>>> *To:* Milton L Mueller; Guru Acharya
>>> *Cc:* Allan MacGillivray; Fouad Bajwa; 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  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  /
>>> becky.burr at neustar.biz / 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>, Becky Burr <
>>> becky.burr at neustar.biz>
>>> *Cc: *Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>, Fouad Bajwa <
>>> fouadbajwa at gmail.com>, "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <
>>> 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 <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>
>>> 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  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  /
>>> becky.burr at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>
>>> *Date: *Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 12:04 PM
>>> *To: *Becky Burr <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=xm679ts9ebwDNuRzz6N0a2u03BsoJV4iMSTlfNWBXKU&e=>>,
>>> Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
>>> *Cc: *"cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <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
>>> <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
>>> *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  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  /
>>> becky.burr at neustar.biz / 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>
>>> *Cc: *"cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <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>
>>> 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>
>>> 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=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> <gurcharya at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> *To: *
>>>
>>> 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_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=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=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
>>>
>>> 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_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=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
>>> 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_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=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=ZYONh-kEmB5dv3rzYIFWLLSMsZ6JohvhU3mRuNA0IvA&e=>
>>> *Mobile: +2348035233535 <%2B2348035233535>*
>>> *alt email:**seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng* <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
>>> 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_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=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
>>> 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
>>> 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.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AAMD-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=QpQAt_piuchJf9ejWDh3H_z119DN4HT2HzMk0YusRzw&s=nxFm0ts_S3ChCWzkn3RQczBO3NlPaImRwFjf4LcdtHo&e=>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> <image002.jpg>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
>> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt
>> email: <http://goog_1872880453/>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>>
>> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or
> subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named
> addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use,
> disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by
> mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141027/f69c4e06/attachment-0001.html>