[CWG-Stewardship] Do we really need a Contracting Co.?

Tue Dec 2 20:21:00 UTC 2014

Hi Chuck,

Thanks a lot for sharing this url....its really useful and i am going to
hope that the accountability team are looking at scenarios like that to fix
ICANN. Inview of this, there are generally 2 routes:

- Fix the accountability mechanisms within ICANN and let the NTIA role
naturally go away

- While the accountability mechanism is yet to be fixed, provide a means by
which IANA can still be moved out of ICANN

I presume we are currently going the second route at the moment. So a
question that i may ask is, will it not be better to work towards the first
route through the second route? This will mean maintaining the ability to
move IANA from current operator with an external body (can be an existing
body like ISOC, IETF etc) or the lightweight (Contracting Co earlier
proposed) and then provide certain principles/mechanisms that this CWG
expect to have been addressed within specific time-frame.

That will give ICANN (and its community) enough time to work on improving
its accountability measures within the timeline indicated by this CWG.

Regards
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

>  Seun,
>
>
>
> Please see the letter I sent to Fadi in 2013:
> https://www.icann.org/resources/correspondence/gomes-to-chehade-2013-08-30-en
> .
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 02, 2014 3:57 AM
> *To:* Avri Doria
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Do we really need a Contracting Co.?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 02-Dec-14 07:16, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
>  I also don't understand the view that ICANN community and corporate are
> separate.
>
>
> The ICANN Board and Staff are independent of the Community and can
> overrule the community either by a vote of the Board, or by calling an
> action 'implementation' that does not require community agreement.
>
>
>
> Okay, may i ask if this is happening at the moment and what the NTIA role
> has been in making sure it does not happen? because what we are trying to
> transition is the NTIA role and not ICANN management itself....if there is
> something that needs to be fixed in the ICANN structure then it could be
> put in the requirement for transition (most of which should be looked into
> by the accountability cwg).
>
>
>  especially since the Board, given its understanding of the its fiduciary
> responsibility sees itself as NOT representing the community. Adn the staff
> is governed by a CEO that is not subject, in any way, to community
> appproval in hiring or contract renewal.  The Community has NO influence
> over ICANN Staff.
>
>
>
> Well in the RIR world the board (by by-law) acts in the interest of the
> organisation. They may also choose not to listen to the community but they
> usually wisely choose otherwise.... ;).
>
>
>
>  What does that mean? and how is ICANN community different from a typical
> RIR community.
>
> In the RIRs there is no body with a vote that can overrule the will of the
> community in policy making.
>
>
>
> The RIR board by the by-law could decide not to approve a policy proposal,
> its just that they have not had any reason to exercise such powers. So if
> you are saying there has been consistence instances where a policy that
> achieved consensus in the ICANN community was overruled by the board, then
> there is definitely something wrong and will be good to have an example of
> such scenario to understand why they took such action and determine how to
> avoid such in future. This is how we build the organisation from inside
> especially if we understand that ICANN is the home for gTLD
>
>
>
>  Please when you think of who pays, think of it from the customer
> perspective, think of participation, think of the resources that's already
> been expended in this current ICG process.
>
>
> How does the contractor paying hurt the consumers?
>
>
>
> I think it will be safer to answer this with another question, where will
> the contractor get the money to pay from?
>
>
>
>
> I persist in seeing the only real possibility of capture in a massively
> multistakeholder body is that the community process can be captured by
> ICANN corporate decisions made that disregard the community's consensus,
> and that is what we need to protect against.
>
>
>
> Looks like you are now referring the MRT to be a MASSIVE multi-stakeholder
> body, please can we fashion out the composition and charter of this
> organisation so we appreciate what we are looking at. It sure seem there is
> going to be a lot of mechanism required to ensure that the multistakeholder
> body is indeed inclusive.
>
> Regards
>
>
> avri
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> *Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web:      *
> *http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> **Mobile:
> +2348035233535 <%2B2348035233535>*
> *alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141202/1391bfc3/attachment-0001.html>