<div dir="ltr"><div>"If IANA is not implementing policy properly, the GNSO would call the Board and staff out." The GNSO could do that now. Under the current set-up, the NTIA provides an additional level of oversight and accountability (and redress) above and beyond dealing with the Board and staff. When the NTIA exits, the GNSO should not be left to "calling out" the Board and staff as a method of dealing with IANA issues, policy or otherwise. And the GNSO should not be left to petitioning a Registry Council from outside the gates.<br><br></div>Greg Shatan<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Burr, Becky <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</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;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<div>
<div>
<div>If IANA is not implementing policy properly, the GNSO would call the Board and staff out. </div><span class="">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">J. Beckwith Burr<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt"><b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(6,134,88)">Neustar, Inc. /</span></b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> Deputy
General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(6,134,88)">Office</span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">: <a href="tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932" value="+12025332932" target="_blank">+ 1.202.533.2932</a> <span style="color:rgb(6,134,88)"> Mobile</span>:
<a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367" value="+12023526367" target="_blank">+1.202.352.6367</a> <span style="color:rgb(6,134,88)">/ <a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz" style="color:purple" target="_blank">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a> / <a href="http://www.neustar.biz" target="_blank">www.neustar.biz</a></span></span></p>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span>
<div style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:11pt;text-align:left;color:black;BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-LEFT:0in;PADDING-RIGHT:0in;BORDER-TOP:#b5c4df 1pt solid;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;PADDING-TOP:3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at 11:00 AM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Becky Burr <<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a>>, Guru Acharya <<a href="mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com" target="_blank">gurcharya@gmail.com</a>>, Allan MacGillivray <<a href="mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca" target="_blank">allan.macgillivray@cira.ca</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>"<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>>, "Lindeberg, Elise" <<a href="mailto:elise.lindeberg@npt.no" target="_blank">elise.lindeberg@npt.no</a>><div><div class="h5"><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities<br>
</div></div></div><div><div class="h5">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>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.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
At 29/10/2014 10:33 AM, Burr, Becky wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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.
<br>
<br>
<br>
J. Beckwith Burr<br>
<br>
<b>Neustar, Inc. /</b> Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer<br>
<br>
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006<br>
<br>
Office: <a href="tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932" value="+12025332932" target="_blank">+ 1.202.533.2932</a> Mobile: <a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367" value="+12023526367" target="_blank">+1.202.352.6367</a> / <a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">
becky.burr@neustar.biz</a> / <a href="http://www.neustar.biz/" target="_blank">www.neustar.biz</a><br>
<br>
From: Guru Acharya <<a href="mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com" target="_blank">gurcharya@gmail.com</a>><br>
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at 9:35 AM<br>
To: Allan MacGillivray <<a href="mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca" target="_blank"> allan.macgillivray@cira.ca</a>><br>
Cc: Becky Burr <<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a> >, "<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank"> cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank"> cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>>, "Lindeberg, Elise"
<<a href="mailto:elise.lindeberg@npt.no" target="_blank">elise.lindeberg@npt.no</a> ><br>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities<br>
<br>
Postulates emerging from Allan's remarks:<br>
<br>
The Oversight Council will monitor compliance with day to day technical SLA type requirements.<br>
<br>
Even though the final contracting authority of changing the IANA operator will rest with the Oversight Council:<br>
<br>
1) There will be a "separate mechanism" for recommending any major decision to the Oversight Council, including change of IANA operator<br>
<br>
2) The Oversight Council will be bound to accept/implement the decision of the "separate mechanism".
<br>
<br>
3) That "separate mechanism" will necessarily involve the views of the GAC.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Allan MacGillivray <<a href="mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca" target="_blank"> allan.macgillivray@cira.ca</a>> wrote:<br>
<dl><br>
<dd>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.<br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>From:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"> cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya<br>
</dd><dd>Sent: October-29-14 8:32 AM<br>
</dd><dd>To: Becky Burr<br>
</dd><dd>Cc: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>; Lindeberg, Elise<br>
</dd><dd>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities<br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>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. <br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>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?<br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Therefore I think GAC should be a part of the oversight council.<br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Regards,<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Guru<br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Burr, Becky <<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a> > wrote:<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>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.
<br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd></dl>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="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=" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></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></div>