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

Tue Dec 2 21:13:38 UTC 2014

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:43 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:

>   ICANN needs to be accountable for (1) developing and implementing
> policy through the multistakeholder process in accordance with its bylaws
> and (2) actually performing the technical IANA functions in a competent
> way.   Proper independent review and redress works for the first, and
> sometimes for the second, but it doesn’t guarantee technical competence.
> The ability to move IANA functions out of ICANN is most important in the
> situation where ICANN is incompetent and can’t or won’t  fix the problem.
> I continue to think that we are making this process much more difficult by
> trying to deal with broader accountability issues in this track.
>
> Hi Burr,

I am not sure the current cwg proposal is just looking at technical
competence of the operator. The way i have come to understand it; is that
all the proposed structures are being justified on the basis that ICANN is
not responsive to item 1 and 2 stated above and so they need to be held
accountable by the proposed new structure (especially with the MRT/PRT) so
in that case there won't be any basis to insist on any other accountability
mechanism to be put in place within ICANN

Cheers!

>
>
>  J. Beckwith Burr
>
> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
>
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>
> Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  /
> becky.burr at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
>
>   From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 at 3:21 PM
> To: Chuck Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com>
> Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Do we really need a Contracting Co.?
>
>    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
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_correspondence_gomes-2Dto-2Dchehade-2D2013-2D08-2D30-2Den&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=sniwjEyqX-KlwYBcEHMa2VMvj54--czhko-gznTZNyI&s=cMZ8gYzJLCkFvsRC1iv_MEWJLGT-Wkx3fcwNLEJIBXI&e=>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=sniwjEyqX-KlwYBcEHMa2VMvj54--czhko-gznTZNyI&s=sQ5Q6jLzCAgZPNkjr5Fpp0xVbabUlzidfZRR4jHnQeo&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> *Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web:      *
>> *http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=sniwjEyqX-KlwYBcEHMa2VMvj54--czhko-gznTZNyI&s=GHypwKbVmWeLVjSpjEmVlxxM9E8J5DSj-Vnys1YnxXc&e=>
>> **Mobile: +2348035233535 <%2B2348035233535>*
>> *alt email:
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__goog-5F1872880453&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=sniwjEyqX-KlwYBcEHMa2VMvj54--czhko-gznTZNyI&s=2LTakbB8A0yGGGdo1cmpMO9RrV32tCpqIGIs4HS8lVI&e=>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-Ekiti web:
> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=sniwjEyqX-KlwYBcEHMa2VMvj54--czhko-gznTZNyI&s=GHypwKbVmWeLVjSpjEmVlxxM9E8J5DSj-Vnys1YnxXc&e=>
> Mobile: +2348035233535 **alt email:
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__goog-5F1872880453&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=sniwjEyqX-KlwYBcEHMa2VMvj54--czhko-gznTZNyI&s=2LTakbB8A0yGGGdo1cmpMO9RrV32tCpqIGIs4HS8lVI&e=>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/b1af2334/attachment-0001.html>