[IANAtransition] [IANAxfer] Is the scope fixed?

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sun Apr 13 20:58:17 UTC 2014


On 14/04/2014 07:06, Richard Hill wrote:
> Vint,
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that it was bottom up in the early days, but that was changed some time ago.  The change was probably made in order to speed up decision-making.  Bottom up processes can be very slow.

That's a very complicated story and since I was ISOC Board Chairman at
the relevant time, maybe I should comment.

The ISOC Board has always been multistakeholder in some sense, and originally
some of the Board seats (including the one I held) were elected by the
dues-paying at-large membership. When I became Chairman, ISOC was pretty
much broke and it turned out that the at-large individual membership dues
were actually costing more money to administer and collect than they
brought in. So we painfully decided to make individual membership free
and rely only on organisational members for all revenue. (This was of course
before the days of PIR income.) We also phased out the at-large elected
Board seats because in practice, by moving to free on-line individual
membership, we had no way to establish a valid one-person one-vote
electoral roll. Those seats became seats elected by the leaders of the
local ISOC Chapters. So there are now three sources of Board members:
 - Elected by ISOC Organisational members
 - Elected by ISOC Chapters
 - Nominated by the IAB for the IETF (RFC3677)

There were strong feelings at the time within the Board, but I think
the local chapters have been quite effective as a grass roots
constituency.

> Again, this is not criticism, there is a need for advocacy groups that can react quickly to external events and express positions quickly.

But if you want to go back to all the local chapters for input, "quickly"
becomes a relative term.

   Brian

> Best,
> Richard
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: Vint Cerf [mailto:vint at google.com]
>   Sent: dimanche, 13. avril 2014 21:02
>   To: rhill at hill-a.ch
>   Cc: John Curran; Ianatransition at Icann. Org; Ianaxfer at Elists. Isoc. Org
>   Subject: Re: [IANAxfer] Is the scope fixed?
> 
> 
>   thanks for this clarification. It might be good for ISOC to experiment with some bottom-up position development if only to test that modus operandi.
> 
> 
>   v
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
> 
>     Dear Vint,
> 
>     I apoligize for not being having been clear enough. Indeed I know that the ISOC Board of Trustees is elected by its contituents (and not by the ISOC membership as a whole) using the fairly complex process specifed in the ISOC procedures at:
> 
>       http://www.internetsociety.org/who-we-are/board-trustees/policies-and-procedures/selection 
> 
>     I was not referring to that.  I was referring to the fact that ISOC positions are enunciated by the ISOC staff under the guidance of the ISOC Board. They are not submitted to the ISOC membership for approval, even if the ISOC membership is, at times, consulted when developing a position.  (But the ISOC membership was not consulted regarding the position that we are discussing here; the position dates back to 14 March).
> 
>     Note that I am not criticizing this: ISOC is an advocacy group, and there is nothing wrong with that.
> 
>     Best,
>     Richard
>       -----Original Message-----
>       From: Vint Cerf [mailto:vint at google.com]
>       Sent: dimanche, 13. avril 2014 18:55
>       To: rhill
>       Cc: John Curran; Ianatransition at Icann. Org; Ianaxfer at Elists. Isoc. Org
>       Subject: Re: [IANAxfer] Is the scope fixed?
> 
> 
>       richard, the board of isoc is elected by its constituents. Did you think otherwise? 
> 
> 
>       v
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 12:45 PM, rhill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
> 
>         Dear John,
> 
> 
>         Thanks for this.  There is actually a statement that is even more explicit than what you say below: "The roles on policy development processes of the Internet technical organizations and ICANN's role as administrator of the IANA functions, remain unchanged."
> 
> 
>         Do you know whether this statement was developed on the basis of a bottom-up process and whether there was consensus for it? Except for ICANN where we know that it is a management decision and ISOC which is not a bottom-up organization. 
> 
> 
>         Thanks and best
>         Richard
> 
> 
> 
>         -------- Original message --------
>         From: John Curran 
>         Date:13/04/2014 18:24 (GMT+01:00) 
>         To: rhill at hill-a.ch 
>         Cc: "Ianaxfer at Elists. Isoc. Org" ,"Ianatransition at Icann. Org" 
>         Subject: Re: [IANAxfer] Is the scope fixed? 
> 
> 
>         On Apr 12, 2014, at 2:12 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
> 
>         > The President and CEO of ICANN has stated:
>         > 
>         > "Specifically, I wish to assure you that the U.S. government, including the
>         > NTIA, has approved the scoping document [PDF, 456 KB], and it is consistent
>         > with the views of the leaders of various Internet organizations including
>         > the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Society and the Regional
>         > Internet Registries."
>         > 
>         > This is at http://blog.icann.org/2014/04/training-wheels-off/
>         > 
>         > So maybe the current discussion on the scoping document is out of scope.
>         > 
>         > But could somebody point me to statements from NTIA, ISOC, IETF, and the
>         > RIRs to that effect?
> 
>         The likely reference is this statement, as endorsed by the individual leaders of 
>         several of the Internet technical organizations:
> 
>         <http://www.nro.net/news/internet-technical-leaders-welcome-iana-globalization-progress>
> 
>         The statement does not directly address the scope of the forthcoming discussions, 
>         but it does welcome the change in IANA stewardship as proposed by NTIA and notes 
>         the continuity in policy development roles of these organizations as well as ICANN’s 
>         role as administrator of the IANA functions.  It is also notes the feasibility of
>         this transition due to the maturity of these organizations, that ICANN is going 
>         to facilitate a global, multi-stakeholder process to plan for the transition, and
>         that we are committed to further strengthening our processes and agreements related 
>         to the IANA functions.
> 
>         To the extent that the scoping document notes similar principles and roles, it is 
>         quite consistent the Internet technical leaders statement referenced above.
> 
>         Thanks!
>         /John
> 
>         Disclaimer: My views alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>         _______________________________________________
>         IANAxfer mailing list
>         IANAxfer at elists.isoc.org
>         https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ianatransition mailing list
> ianatransition at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition




More information about the ianatransition mailing list