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

Thu Oct 30 17:41:01 UTC 2014

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
wrote:

> The issue is how to possibly add in -
>
> - The ability to strengthen the ability for concerns to be raised
> - Aa much stronger oversight mechanism/body that has an enforcement
> capability over the board & staff.
>

Great and it will be good if such mechanism is more concentrated on board
while we leave board to ensure that staff comply

Cheers!

>
> Robert
>
>
> On Oct 29, 2014, at 2:17 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> 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  /
> becky.burr at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
>
>   From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at 11:00 AM
> To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>, Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com>,
> Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>
> Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>, "Lindeberg,
> Elise" <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  /
> becky.burr at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
>
> From: Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com>
> Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at 9:35 AM
> To: Allan MacGillivray < allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>
> Cc: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz >, " cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <
> cwg-stewardship at icann.org>, "Lindeberg, Elise" <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> 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
> <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; 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 >
> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AAMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=f_dUJVj6jJPmpQAt5smHRlUgXbM0PYmu7UGCflKYh9Y&s=8JQhW6hJkxj5xWBI55LWXbi9z_hph1qAqsepz9bJTv0&e=>
>
>   _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> 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
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141030/1bb04387/attachment.html>