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

Wed Oct 29 15:50:53 UTC 2014

Hello all,

irrespective of whether an "Oversight Council" is a desirable thing or
not (I have not yet made up my mind about this, only having very basic
information about it), I see a serious conflict of Interest where only
the directly affected parties oversee operations that concern them
directly.
There was much discussion about the GAC having seats. Although I have
not asked them, I am pretty much sure that end users, as affected
parties, would need a number of seats too.

Kind regards,

Olivier

On 29/10/2014 14:33, Burr, Becky 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
> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz
>
>
> From: Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com <mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com>>
> Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at 9:35 AM
> 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>>, "cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>, "Lindeberg, Elise"
> <elise.lindeberg at npt.no <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>     <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
>     [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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. 
>
>      
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141029/9f791229/attachment.html>