<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Good evening:<div><br></div><div>Allow me to come back into this discussion:</div><div><br></div><div>1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>IANA must remain a single, integral service. Oversight and accountability (O&A) can be done once. There is no scope for achieving O&A on the basis of several distinct entities and procedures.</div><div><br></div><div>2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>All the IANA services must remain cost-free to the final user. There must be no question of charging for specific services, notably amendments of the Root Zone.</div><div> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>ICANN already has more than ample resources to ensure that the present and future IANA is fully funded on a public service basis, as at present.</div><div><br></div><div>3.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Thus the question of the financing of the new IANA looks like a red-herring. No.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards</div><div><br></div><div>CW</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div><div>On 25 Oct 2014, at 15:51, Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Amr Elsadr <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org" target="_blank">aelsadr@egyptig.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Hi Seun,</div><div><br></div><div>I can’t claim particular expertise, but nonetheless, some thoughts in-line to your questions:</div><br><div><span class=""><div>On Oct 25, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><p dir="ltr">Hmm... just to further understand the practicality of this. So the new IANA (names part of the functions) will be funded by the registries right. Well i have a few set of questions below:</p><p dir="ltr">- How does/will something like newgTLD process look like? I.e will ICANN accredit or the new entity?<br></p></blockquote></span><div>Doesn’t ICANN already do this?</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes it does and i am not talking about the present, i am talking about the future without the NTIA. All my questions are some practicalities i think we need to clarify from if there is indeed going to be a new IANA, In respect to the role of ICANN vis the new IANA (names function)<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div> <br></div><span class=""><blockquote type="cite"><p dir="ltr">
- What exactly will the new entity be doing?<br></p></blockquote></span>The way I see it, the new entity will not be a new IANA, but a replacement for the current IANA steward (i.e.: the NTIA). Creating a new steward does not necessarily require the creation of a new IANA. What it will be doing is what we need to collectively figure out and propose to the ICG, but that would surely include awarding the IANA contract to a contractor, making it the principle in that agreement.<span class=""><br></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Okay if its not going to be the new IANA then i think i will pause my comments right here and ask Roberto to clarify what he meant by new IANA funding? My interpretation was that he was referring to the names IANA functions taken out from ICANN and not necessarily the ability to award contract as you have indicated above.<br><br></div><div>If its the contracting (which is not necessarily what the IGP proposes), Then we need to face some realities:<br><br></div><div>- I am not a lawyer but i don't see how a consortium of any SO/AC within ICANN can award a contract.<br></div><div>- A contracting body as it stands will most likely need to have some governmental involvement in one way or the other (!=NTIA requirement)<br></div><div>- There may then be other issue of who oversights on the new contracting body<br></div><div>- The ultimate puzzle will we be asking what we will be solving by moving from a contracting regime to another one that is yet to be in formation<br></div><div><br></div><div>Just a few cents and i am sure there are other perspectives<br><br></div><div>Cheers!<br></div><div><br></div><div>Regards<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><span class=""><blockquote type="cite"><p dir="ltr">
- What will ICANN's new role be? I am assuming PDP (based on IGP) if that is the case it means the new entity will work on the ICANN's community developed policy right? And how does that improve accountability.<br></p></blockquote></span>Policy development for gTLDs is not a new role for ICANN. It’s what its current role is, and will continue to be. The accountability of ICANN’s PDP for gTLDs and the accountability of ICANN’s management of the IANA function are two different things. I am not assuming that IANA needs to be separated from ICANN as a result of the process we are currently in. It should, however, be a possibility in the event that ICANN attempts to abuse its management of IANA, which constitutes the accountability issues we need to discuss. This will also largely depend on the broader ICANN accountability issues, which will be discussed in another CWG.<span class=""><br><blockquote type="cite"><p dir="ltr">
- Who determine what staff to employ for the new entity? I presume there will then be a need for board of Directors, bylaw, membership etc.</p></blockquote></span><div>If by “new entity”, you mean the new stewardship/oversight body/council/or DROC, then that new entity should probably decide what it requires in terms of staff support. I don’t foresee a need for a board of directors, but I may be wrong in case a BoDs is required in the event incorporation is. Membership and who develops the bylaws should probably be proposed by us (this CWG).</div><div><br></div><div>If by “new entity”, you mean the new IANA, I would assume that whoever is the contractor will make these decisions, wether the contractor is ICANN or any other org.</div><span class=""><blockquote type="cite"><p dir="ltr">- Is the new entity going to be established in any country?<br></p></blockquote></span>Wouldn’t it have to be?<span class=""><br><blockquote type="cite"><p dir="ltr">
- What will the composition of such new entities board look like? cctld, gtld, end-users?<br></p></blockquote></span>Is this the same question as the one above?<span class=""><br><blockquote type="cite"><p dir="ltr">
- Who will generally oversee the accountability of the new entity?<br></p></blockquote></span>I would hope that the accountability of the new entity is overseen by the communities that appoint representatives to its decision-making body. I suspect that both cc and gTLD registries will play an important, although not exclusive, role in this.<span class=""><br><blockquote type="cite"><p dir="ltr">
- Who/what determines how the funds is shared between ICANN and the new entity?</p></blockquote></span>I believe that finances shouldn’t be shared, but divided. It makes the possibility of separability (in the event that it is required) more straight forward. The new stewardship org could get its funding from fees collected from registries similar to the registry-level transaction fees collected by ICANN based on its own budget requirements. These fees could also be deducted from the same fees ICANN currently collects from registries, resulting in little to no increase of levies on them. I believe ICANN’s draft budget for FY15 placed the total amount required for the delivery of the IANA functions at about USD 9.5 million.</div><div><br></div><div>My two cents on these, but suspect there are aspects I haven’t considered. More thoughts would be appreciated.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks.</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Amr</div></font></span></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr">------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><font color="#888888"><blockquote style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex;font-family:garamond,serif">
<i><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Seun Ojedeji,<br style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Federal University Oye-Ekiti<br style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">web: </span><a href="http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/" target="_blank">http://www.fuoye.edu.ng</a><br>
<span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Mobile: <a value="+2348035233535">+2348035233535</a></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><br></i><i><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">alt email:<a href="http://goog_1872880453/" target="_blank"> </a><a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng</a></span></i><br><br><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The key to understanding is humility - my view !<br></blockquote></blockquote></font><br></div>
</div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>