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

[Seun Ojedeji]

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

>
> Sorry if its not IANA functions then what else is there to transition?
>
> *[Chuck Gomes] Note ICANN’s mission:*
>

....as if those are exclusive of the functions; its like saying united
states is exclusive to California ;-)


>
> *“*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.*
>
Maybe you missed mine as well....but i am learning to control my mail trail
lately so i won't try again. May see you offlist though ;)

Thanks

Cheers!

>
>
>   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] *On Behalf Of *Steve Crocker
> *Sent:* Monday, December 22, 2014 1:58 PM
> *To:* 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
> 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/20141222/1321954e/attachment-0001.html>