<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">Hello Jordan,<br><br>On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Jordan Carter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi Seun,<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On 18 December 2014 at 12:14, Seun Ojedeji <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">Hi Jordan,<br><br>Let me make another attempt to clarify my point<span><br><br></span><div>I think you are mis-understanding my point which is that gTLD at the moment ONLY has its home in ICANN. Yes contractual approach is currently been used for gTLD because there is no sense of strong accountability within the organisation. If there is then need to continue the contractual route it can ONLY work in the manner currently being used i.e an entirely independent organisation (like the RIR, IETF, ccTLD, NTIA) makes a service agreement with the operator. However as we have now identified the need to transition oversight to multistakeholder, that can ONLY be effective by implementing mechanism within an organisation that allows the multistakholder community feel somewhat in charge. <br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>We are talking about entirely different things. </div><div><br></div><div>There is no linkage at all between the ICANN-gTLD contracts and the two contracts I am talking about. </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I am not talking about those agreements between ICANN and registrars/registries. I was more of using gTLD to explain the fact that ICANN is the organisation for gTLD and one the role it does for names is RZM which is part of IANA function. ICANN is not the organisation for numbers neither is it for protocols and that is why there is a need for them to have an agreement going forward because the service its providing to them needs to be formalised. <br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>The ICANN-gTLD contracts are because the gTLDs are an ICANN creation. Neither their existence, nor the absence of contracts between ccTLDs and ICANN, has anything to do with the questions we are dealing with here.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Again this is not what i am saying. This CWG is to transition the rights/accountability (stewardship) of NTIA to multi-stakeholder, there is NO organisation called multistakeholder however we know of multistakeholder communities. How else do you then transfer that if not through providing mechanisms that makes the operator accountable to the multistakeholder community.<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>All we are dealing with is whether ICANN should own the stewardship of the IANA functions, or whether an organisation outside ICANN has that stewardship. </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is where i think there may be mis-understanding, it does not make any sense to argue that ICANN(as an organisation) should own the stewardship, but it does makes sense to ensure that ICANN (as a community) is exercising the oversight on ICANN (as an organisation). So when we (ALAC members) say "internal to ICANN" we are saying implementation of mechanism within ICANN that empowers the community. Empowerment is not just circled around moving IANA, its circled around seeing a problem, and determining solution through bottom up process and ensuring those solutions are implemented. So more of the exercising will be about fixing.<br><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>In my opinion it should be outside ICANN, because an inside ICANN solution makes it next to impossible to ensure that a necessary change of IANA operator will be achievable.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Lets both think through that route; we need to transition to multistakeholder so what is the "outside multistakeholder" you are referring to? what do you also define as "outside" in that context?. The present CWG proposal for instance intends to setup a new organisation that will solely use the resources of the present operator (both the community and the funds) to operate, so how have you justified outside? except that you have just tried to go to Kenya from Nigeria using Emirates airline (why not Kenya airways)<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>You *cannot* have ICANN as steward and an equivalence of accountability to today, no matter what you do in the -accountability CCWG or in terms of improving ICANN accountability. </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The other point is that we/you ONLY see stewardship as ability to move IANA and so circle all your options around that. This should not be the case, stewardship is series of accountability mechanisms and moving IANA is just 1 aspect of it. So the CWG is indeed looking for accountability just that its only concerned about those related to names of IANA functions for example reviewing budget relating to ICANN globalization may not be within our scope but the budget of IANA maintenance is, also the source of IANA operation instruction is within our scope.<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>I think we now can see where we are talking about different things...</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div>I don't think so, but you may point me to what i may have missed<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div>So I ask a question - if you want to put stewardship inside ICANN, can you explain why?</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div>Again stewardship are rights enabled by processes, if its not incorporated into ICANN (organisation and community) then there is no other way to effectively reflect it other than to continue the current status quo which is basically having another NTIA like organisation (in all its independence) awarding the contracts<br></div><div><br></div><div>Regards <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div><snip></div><span class=""><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span><div><br></div><span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>Even if ICANN transitions to a more accountable organisation in terms of what it does, that doesn't balance out the very far-reaching change you seem to have suggested of putting all the pieces in one basket.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span></span><div>The way i understand it, there has always been a basket, just that the basket gets sighted by another party i.e NTIA (without NTIA changing its content) before it arrives Verisign who then load the content of the basket in the store.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What if one person controls the whole process, as you are proposing? That's the nub of my concern. </div><span><font color="#888888"><div><br></div></font></span></div></div></div></blockquote></span><div>The whole process has always been from one source (i.e the IANA operator) so what its important is ensuring that instruction sent from the source is as expected. This does not require any external body to look at but require internal mechanism that ensure the operator does not send information that is not inline with the community's policy (which will largely require the bylaw/policy rewording)<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>No. The one source of authority has been NTIA, which has contracts with ICANN to be the IANA Functions Operator, and with Verisign to be the Root Zone Maintainer.</div><div><br></div><div>You are proposing that the one source of authority be ICANN.</div><div><br></div><div>I am saying I disagree, and I am further saying that nowhere have I yet seen an argument that sets out why consolidating things in one place is a good idea.</div><div><br></div><div>best,</div><div>Jordan</div><div><br></div></div><div><div dir="ltr"><br></div></div>
</div></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 clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><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></div>