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

[Guru Acharya]

Becky. I agree with your initial assessment that the "oversight council"
would focus on "technical and operational issues" (as opposed to policy
issues); and therefore GAC participation in the council will not be
required even though GAC participation at an equal footing will not be
inconsistent with the multi-stakeholder model.

However, I think GAC participation in the council might be essential in the
scenario where the oversight council decides to change the IANA operator in
the future. If the council decides to contract a different operator
(different from ICANN) in the future, would it not lead to various policy
issues such as jurisdiction of the new IANA operator, financing of the new
IANA operator etc - where the insight of the GAC may be beneficial?

Therefore I think GAC should be a part of the oversight council.

Regards,
Guru

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:

>  Thanks Elise, very helpful.  I was thinking that the “oversight counsel”
> would focus on technical and operational issues as opposed to policy issues
> ... But policy for IANA would remain in existing ICANN processes.  Could
> you help me understand which technical/operational IANA services might
> raise “public interest” concerns?  I agree with you that having some GAC
> reps on a Oversight Counsel would not be inconsistent with the Strickling
> view, but I am curious about why GAC might want to participate in that kind
> of counsel.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141029/b0965e61/attachment.html>