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

[Robert Guerra]

Apologies for late comments - catching up the conversation just now.

> On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:02 AM, Allan MacGillivray <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.

Agree as well

>   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.

Might we want another body (council / governance board / etc) to be created to handle this?

Robert

>  
>  
> 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 <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141030/88957014/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4465 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141030/88957014/smime-0001.p7s>