[CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier

[Matthew Shears]

Agree with Chuck that Allan's second point is key.  It is not at the 
level of the IANA functions that policy issues will be resolved.  If the 
policies are developed through agreed bottom-up transparent processes 
and are appropriately followed there should be very little need for 
oversight of the IANA functions.  (I think we all agree that it is 
largely neutral and clerical - but important - function.)  The 
"oversight" or accountability ensuring mechanisms must be with the 
policy making entities, in other words ICANN.  We should be wary of 
overloading the IANA functions with "oversight" - if it is unnecessary 
it could be burdensome indeed detrimental to the performance of the 
function itself.

Matthew

On 10/30/2014 11:52 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> Alan,
>
> I think your last sentence is the key point.  Policy differences 
> should be 'rectified at the policy/contractual level'. That is a 
> different level in the processes for gTLDs and ccTLDs than when the 
> IANA functions operator is actually performing its services.  I can't 
> speak for Milton, but I think he is focusing on the very specific 
> tasks that the IANA functions operator does after the policy 
> differences have been resolved.  One of the IANA functions enumerated 
> in the IANA functions contract is "verifying that ICANN followed its 
> own policy framework including specific documentation demonstrating 
> how the process provided the opportunity for input from relevant 
> stakeholders and was supportive of the global public interest".
>
> I believe that this will be easier to discuss after the subgroup 
> finishes its work on RFP Section 2A, which I hope will be before the 
> next meeting.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org 
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alan Greenberg
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 30, 2014 6:34 AM
> *To:* Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier
>
> I am neither Olivier nor a +1, but I'll try.
>
> First, the process IS politicized. All you are doing is ensuring that 
> only one faction has a voice. Yes, as in political systems, that 
> "simplifies things" but does not necessarily make it better. This 
> entire discussion reminds me of the statement attributed to the then 
> CEO of General Motors - "What is good for General Motors is good for 
> the Country (ie the USA)", a statement to which can rationalize all 
> sorts of corporate misbehaviour seen in later year. In this case, 
> "What is good for Registries is good for the Internet".  It will 
> certainly be true much of the time, but I think it presumptuous to 
> assume that this will be the case in all future instances. There may 
> well be cases that in the future, that there is a policy that is 
> decided governing how IANA is to operate that does not meet with the 
> complete satisfaction of registries. That is the nature of a 
> multistakeholder policy process.
>
> Second, if the policies, contracts, agreements, etc are clear, there 
> should not be a lot of judgement call involved in this overseeing. And 
> when there is, it indicates a problem that needs to be rectified at 
> the policy/contractual level.
>
> Alan
>
> At 29/10/2014 11:47 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>
> Olivier, and all the +1-ers, are ignoring the point that was made 
> about the risks of circumventing or vetoing community policy by 
> politicizing the operational and technical functions via this kind of 
> âEUR~oversightâEUR^(TM)
>
> Would you care to address this, please?
>
>
> *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 *Tracy 
> Hackshaw @ Google
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 29, 2014 9:54 PM
> *To:* Lindeberg, Elise; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; 
> cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier
>
> +1
>
> Sent from BlackBerry Q10
> *From: *Lindeberg, Elise
> *Sent: *Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:02 PM
> *To: *Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; cwg-stewardship at icann.org 
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier
>
> + 1
>
> Elise
>
> *Fra:* 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>] *PÃ¥ vegne av* Olivier MJ 
> Crepin-Leblond
> *Sendt:* 29. oktober 2014 19:16
> *Til:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> *Emne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier
>
> Dear Becky,
>
> thanks for detailing the various functions and going to depth showing 
> none of the functions involve policy. To be frank, I am somehow 
> baffled as to why end users would only be interested in policy and not 
> operations.
> On 29/10/2014 17:45, Becky Burr wrote:
>
> Again, to be clear, I am not unalterably opposed to having other parts 
> of the community participate, but I donâEUR^(TM)t understand why they 
> would want to.
>
>
> It's that set of eyes. End users would feel a lot happier if they 
> could watch... and warn.
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto: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

-- 
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141030/3b38ee52/attachment.html>