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

Wed Oct 29 15:42:10 UTC 2014

First I am not in favour of the wording Oversight Council or any such
attempts of councils and new orgs etc.

In the IANA sense of things, I'd stick with an ad-hoc committee that would
be put together with representation beyond a registry controlled group.
This committee can be well equipped to deal with SLA and contractual
agreements etc.

Such a committee must be established on the basis of a multistakeholder
representation that is renewed each year in an open and transparent manner
where openess, diversity, inclusiveness and the user perspective is well
represented.

Whoever says this is impractical may be over looking the fact that there is
similarity with IGF MAG and various ICANN AC/OC selection processes though
not optimal but indeed adoptable with certain improvements.

Making IANA prone to new councils or orgs etc is impractical. IANA can
itself exist independently with an Advisory or Management committee with
rotating yearly membership but contractual staffing.

Best

Found

On Wednesday, 29 October 2014, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:

>  I’d envisioned the “Oversight Council” to be elected by registries (ccs
> and gs) organized in some fashion outside of the ICANN umbrella – so the
> IANA Oversight Inc. or other association we were talking about the other
> day.  It seems to me that the duties and authority of the Council would be
> determined by the membership of the organization (I.e., the registries) –
> so these questions would be resolved as part of structuring Oversight,
> Inc.  Let’s not create yet another separate mechanism.  Instead, figure out
> a way for the views of all stakeholders with respect to major decisions can
> be collected by Oversight, Inc. and taken into account in the process of
> developing major proposals.
>
>
>  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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','becky.burr at neustar.biz');> / www.neustar.biz
>
>   From: Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gurcharya at gmail.com');>>
> Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at 9:35 AM
> To: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','allan.macgillivray at cira.ca');>>
> Cc: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','becky.burr at neustar.biz');>>, "
> cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship at icann.org');>" <
> cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship at icann.org');>>, "Lindeberg,
> Elise" <elise.lindeberg at npt.no
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','elise.lindeberg at npt.no');>>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the
> other two communities
>
>   Postulates emerging from Allan's remarks:
>
>  The Oversight Council will monitor compliance with day to day technical
> SLA type requirements.
>
>  Even though the final contracting authority of changing the IANA
> operator will rest with the Oversight Council:
>
>  1) There will be a "separate mechanism" for recommending any major
> decision to the Oversight Council, including change of IANA operator
>
>  2) The Oversight Council will be bound to accept/implement the decision
> of the "separate mechanism".
>
>  3) That "separate mechanism" will necessarily involve the views of the
> GAC.
>
>  4) That "separate mechanism" will be at an arms length from ICANN so
> that the ICANN board can not interfere since ICANN is the present IANA
> operator.
>
>  How do we intend to codify these characteristics of the "separate
> mechanism" so that the GAC can be assured that they will be consulted in
> case of change of the IANA operator? Maybe as part of a MOU between the
> Oversight Council and GAC+ALAC+GNSO+CCSNO?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Allan MacGillivray <
> allan.macgillivray at cira.ca
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','allan.macgillivray at cira.ca');>> wrote:
>
>>  I see the “oversight council” as being a body that deals with IANA
>> compliance with day-to-day SLA-type responsibilities e.g. the current
>> performance metric that 80% of root zone file and WHOIS database change
>> requests be completed within 21 days.  I would not expect that governments
>> (other than those that are ccTLD operators) would have much interest in
>> this. However, were there to be major review of these functions, such as
>> that which the NTIA initiated in 2011 with its NOI, or to change the
>> operator, then I would expect that the responsibility for conducting such a
>> review would not fall on the ‘oversight council’ alone and that in whatever
>> mechanism that would be established, there could be a role for governments.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org');>
>> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org');>] *On
>> Behalf Of *Guru Acharya
>> *Sent:* October-29-14 8:32 AM
>> *To:* Becky Burr
>> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship at icann.org');>; Lindeberg,
>> Elise
>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs
>> the other two communities
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141029/2ed071b7/attachment-0001.html>