[CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: ICANN Board Comments on Cross Community Working Group (CWG) Draft Transition Proposal for Naming Related Functions

[Gomes, Chuck]

Seun,

Please see below.

Chuck

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 3:22 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: ICANN Board Comments on Cross Community Working Group (CWG) Draft Transition Proposal for Naming Related Functions

Hi Chuck

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:
Here are my personal thoughts on the Board comments.

3.       I do agree with them that the transition to ICANN “is, in large part, what ICANN was designed to do”, although I don’t think that meant the IANA functions exclusively.
Sorry if its not IANA functions then what else is there to transition?
[Chuck Gomes] Note ICANN’s mission:

“1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet, which are
a. Domain names (forming a system referred to as "DNS");
b. Internet protocol ("IP") addresses and autonomous system ("AS") numbers; and
c. Protocol port and parameter numbers.
2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system.
3. Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions.”
There is much more than IANA services here.  If not, then ICANN is way too big.


4.       They disagree with the formation of a separate contracting entity but they fail to address the fact that the possibility of separating the IANA functions from ICANN was one of the key accountability mechanisms that NTIA provided that impacted not just the IANA services but all of ICANN accountability.
Again if i may ask, could you tell me how else NTIA would have handled oversight apart from contracting? just like the RIR and IETF communities, is there any other way ICANN could operate their related functions without an agreement(SLA)? because these organisations are external and independent of ICANN. So IMO if we really want to continue contracting, then we need another organisation like NTIA (in its full independent of the IANA operator) to get the job done effectively. However, because this shoe is now to be worn by "multistakeholder" then it just makes practical sense to integrate oversight (accountability) into the existing organisation. Someone wrote a blog and defined a bylaw (paraphrased) as the document that indicate how an organisation operate while a contract is the one that tells how an organisation should execute a specific set of tasks. However the person failed to indicate that any entity that would exercise the latter would exhibit absolute control both in resource and independence from the operator. In a situation where that is not possible, the former becomes a realistic target solution to concentrate on.

There has been questions/comments about how contract co / MRT(in its current overreaching responsibilities) will be accountable and i have seen some response still point to the bylaw of the contract co as a possible avenue to restrict things. Why then do we find it difficult to have such thinking on the ICANN bylaw? someone said ICANN bylaw can be changed by the board, and how about contract co bylaw? The earlier we face the reality of multiple loop holes we are about to create (in addition to existing ones) with the current CWG proposal the better for us all in this process.[Chuck Gomes] \
[Chuck Gomes] You missed my point Seun.  The option of separating IANA from ICANN provided important accountability.  If that option goes away, so does the accountability with it.

That said, I appreciate the fact that the Board submitted these comments and I think we should take them into consideration as we review and evaluate all of the public comments.

+1
Thanks

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Steve Crocker
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 1:58 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Cc: Stephen D. Crocker
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: ICANN Board Comments on Cross Community Working Group (CWG) Draft Transition Proposal for Naming Related Functions

Folks,

The ICANN Board has just submitted the attached public comment.

Thanks,

Steve Crocker
for the ICANN Board of Directors





_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng<mailto: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/20141222/919cb77a/attachment-0001.html>