<html>
<body>
Becky, I don't normally like analogies because they often break down, but
since you introduced it, you are right, if the house burns down I might
go after the contractor, but that does not stop me from, when there is an
opportunity, watching the electrician and bricklayer and plumber and
calling them on things that they are doing wrong. A far easier, faster
and cheaper way to fix problems than after the fire or flood or house
collapse (and from personal experieince, it works).<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 29/10/2014 01:20 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">IANA is a service
provider. If you hire a contractor to build a house, it is the
contractor’s job to make sure that the plumber and the electrician do
their work properly. If your house burns down because the wiring is
faulty, you are going to look to the contractor – not the electrician –
to make you whole. <br><br>
I fully support multi-stakeholder policy development.
Multi-stakeholder oversight of the electrician doesn’t make sense to
me.<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: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 /
<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a> /
<a href="http://www.neustar.biz/" eudora="autourl">www.neustar.biz</a><br>
<br>
From: Fouad Bajwa
<<a href="mailto:fouadbajwa@gmail.com">fouadbajwa@gmail.com</a>><br>
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at 11:42 AM<br>
To: Becky Burr
<<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a>
><br>
Cc: Guru Acharya
<<a href="mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com">gurcharya@gmail.com</a>>,
Allan MacGillivray
<<a href="mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca">
allan.macgillivray@cira.ca</a>>,
"<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">
cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">
cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>>, "Lindeberg, Elise"
<<a href="mailto:elise.lindeberg@npt.no">elise.lindeberg@npt.no</a>
><br>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the
other two communities<br><br>
First I am not in favour of the wording Oversight Council or any such
attempts of councils and new orgs etc. <br><br>
In the IANA sense of things, I'd stick with an ad-hoc committee that
would be put together with representation beyond a registry controlled
group. This committee can be well equipped to deal with SLA and
contractual agreements etc. <br><br>
Such a committee must be established on the basis of a multistakeholder
representation that is renewed each year in an open and transparent
manner where openess, diversity, inclusiveness and the user perspective
is well represented.<br><br>
Whoever says this is impractical may be over looking the fact that there
is similarity with IGF MAG and various ICANN AC/OC selection processes
though not optimal but indeed adoptable with certain
improvements.<br><br>
Making IANA prone to new councils or orgs etc is impractical. IANA can
itself exist independently with an Advisory or Management committee with
rotating yearly membership but contractual staffing.<br><br>
Best<br><br>
Found<br><br>
On Wednesday, 29 October 2014, Burr, Becky
<<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>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>
<dd>J. Beckwith Burr<br><br>
<dd>Neustar, Inc. /</b> Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy
Officer<br><br>
<dd>1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006<br><br>
<dd>Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 /
becky.burr@neustar.biz /
<a href="http://www.neustar.biz">www.neustar.biz</a><br><br>
<dd>From: Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com><br>
<dd>Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at 9:35 AM<br>
<dd>To: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca><br>
<dd>Cc: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz>,
"cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>,
"Lindeberg, Elise" <elise.lindeberg@npt.no><br>
<dd>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs
the other two communities<br><br>
<dd>Postulates emerging from Allan's remarks:<br><br>
<dd>The Oversight Council will monitor compliance with day to day
technical SLA type requirements.<br><br>
<dd>Even though the final contracting authority of changing the IANA
operator will rest with the Oversight Council:<br><br>
<dd>1) There will be a "separate mechanism" for recommending
any major decision to the Oversight Council, including change of IANA
operator<br><br>
<dd>2) The Oversight Council will be bound to accept/implement the
decision of the "separate mechanism". <br><br>
<dd>3) That "separate mechanism" will necessarily involve the
views of the GAC.<br><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Allan MacGillivray
<allan.macgillivray@cira.ca> 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> <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>From:</b>cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
[<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of </b>Guru
Acharya<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> October-29-14 8:32 AM<br>
<dd>To:</b> Becky Burr<br>
<dd>Cc:</b> cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Lindeberg, Elise<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community
vs the other two communities<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<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> <br><br>
<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> <br><br>
<dd>Therefore I think GAC should be a part of the oversight
council.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Regards,<br><br>
<dd>Guru<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Burr, Becky
<Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:<br><br>
<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> <br><br>
</dl><br>
</dl><br><br>
-- <br>
Regards.<br>
--------------------------<br>
Fouad Bajwa<br>
ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor<br>
My Blog: Internet's Governance:
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__internetsgovernance.blogspot.com_&d=AAMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=f6KZGZywZb0e4ozcRq4rLx4kuzJ2KwUFbRMZv_-FhSs&s=sYaRjaOne3P6EYfVw3R4CZPTVnChBjo6B5QE6mL2goI&e=">
http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/</a><br>
Follow my Tweets:
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_fouadbajwa&d=AAMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=f6KZGZywZb0e4ozcRq4rLx4kuzJ2KwUFbRMZv_-FhSs&s=Em5lnxmSZ4r7HBAgLB0FLACjyTcRc8PYd_vAAOwHFpA&e=">
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa</a><br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></blockquote>
</body>
</html>