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

[Alan Greenberg]

You are presuming that the GNSO is watching, 
which is not it its formal mandate, nor does it 
have any real mechanism which which to take action if it did.

Alan

At 29/10/2014 02:17 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:
>If IANA is not implementing policy properly, the 
>GNSO would call the Board and staff out.
>
>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  / 
><mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>becky.burr at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
>
>From: Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at 11:00 AM
>To: Becky Burr 
><<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>becky.burr at neustar.biz>, 
>Guru Acharya 
><<mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com>gurcharya at gmail.com>, 
>Allan MacGillivray 
><<mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>
>Cc: 
>"<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>cwg-stewardship at icann.org" 
><<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>cwg-stewardship at icann.org>, 
>"Lindeberg, Elise" <<mailto:elise.lindeberg at npt.no>elise.lindeberg at npt.no>
>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] 
>Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
>
>There is a potential problem with having just 
>registries doing the oversight. Particularly for 
>gTLD,s policy is set by a MS group (the GNSO) 
>and it is possible that they can set a policy 
>that the gTLD registries do not approve of (they 
>do not have a veto based on GNSO voting 
>threshholds). If IANA were to not be 
>implementing that policy properly, the oversight 
>body, composed of only registries would have no 
>incentive to call IANA out on the problem.
>
>Alan
>
>At 29/10/2014 10:33 AM, 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  / 
>><mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>becky.burr at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
>>
>>From: Guru Acharya <<mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com>gurcharya at gmail.com>
>>Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at 9:35 AM
>>To: Allan MacGillivray 
>><<mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca> allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>
>>Cc: Becky Burr 
>><<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>becky.burr at neustar.biz  
>> >, "<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> 
>>cwg-stewardship at icann.org" 
>><<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> 
>>cwg-stewardship at icann.org>, "Lindeberg, Elise" 
>><<mailto:elise.lindeberg at npt.no>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 
>><<mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca> 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:<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> 
>>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: 
>><mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>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 
>><<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>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
>><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>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/20141029/1f809614/attachment.html>