<div dir="ltr">Oliver,<div><br></div><div>I agree we haven't reached consensus that we are going with an Oversight Council.</div><div><br></div><div>However, I figure this discussion is just with the hope of thrashing out alternatives so that we can eventually reach consensus.</div><div><br></div><div>Anyway, as Allan suggested, I see two types of oversights emerging</div><div>1) Day to day oversight</div><div>2) Major review oversight<br></div><div><br></div><div>"Day to day oversight" include 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.</div><div><br></div><div>"Major review oversight" include change in IANA operator or any major review of IANA as done in 2011 by NTIA.</div><div><br></div><div>In my opinion, while "day to day oversight" is technical/operational; any "major review oversight" will involve policy issues.</div><div><br></div><div>I agree with Becky that "day to day oversight" only involves the registeries.</div><div><br></div><div>I however strongly feel that "major review oversight" involves the GAC and ALAC and other stakeholder groups from GNSO such as NCSG.</div><div><br></div><div>Establishing a "separate mechanism" for "major review oversight" appears to be cumbersome. Therefore i disagree with Alan and Milton.</div><div><br></div><div>I feel it is simpler to include all ACs and SGs in the "Oversight Council" to deal with "major review oversight".</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com" target="_blank">ocl@gih.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hello all,<br>
<br>
irrespective of whether an "Oversight Council" is a desirable thing
or not (I have not yet made up my mind about this, only having very
basic information about it), I see a serious conflict of Interest
where only the directly affected parties oversee operations that
concern them directly. <br>
There was much discussion about the GAC having seats. Although I
have not asked them, I am pretty much sure that end users, as
affected parties, would need a number of seats too.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<div>On 29/10/2014 14:33, Burr, Becky wrote:<br>
</div>
</div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
<div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<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">:
+ 1.202.533.2932 <span style="color:rgb(6,134,88)"> Mobile</span>:
+1.202.352.6367 <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>
</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>Guru Acharya <<a href="mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com" target="_blank">gurcharya@gmail.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Wednesday,
October 29, 2014 at 9:35 AM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Allan MacGillivray
<<a href="mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca" target="_blank">allan.macgillivray@cira.ca</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>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>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re:
[CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the
other two communities<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Postulates emerging from Allan's remarks:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The Oversight Council will monitor compliance with
day to day technical SLA type requirements.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Even though the final contracting authority of
changing the IANA operator will rest with the Oversight
Council:<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1) There will be a "separate mechanism" for
recommending any major decision to the Oversight
Council, including change of IANA operator</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2) The Oversight Council will be bound to
accept/implement the decision of the "separate
mechanism". </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>3) That "separate mechanism" will necessarily involve
the views of the GAC.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:32 PM,
Allan MacGillivray <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca" target="_blank">allan.macgillivray@cira.ca</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-CA">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif" lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif" lang="EN-US"><a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Guru Acharya<br>
<b>Sent:</b> October-29-14 8:32 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Becky Burr<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>;
Lindeberg, Elise<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship]
[IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the
other two communities</span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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?</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Therefore I think GAC
should be a part of the oversight
council.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Guru</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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:</p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">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. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><span class=""><pre>_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
</pre>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
</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>