[CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities

[Guru Acharya]

Postulates emerging from Allan's remarks:

The Oversight Council will monitor compliance with day to day technical SLA
type requirements.

Even though the final contracting authority of changing the IANA operator
will rest with the Oversight Council:

1) There will be a "separate mechanism" for recommending any major decision
to the Oversight Council, including change of IANA operator

2) The Oversight Council will be bound to accept/implement the decision of
the "separate mechanism".

3) That "separate mechanism" will necessarily involve the views of the GAC.

4) That "separate mechanism" will be at an arms length from ICANN so that
the ICANN board can not interfere since ICANN is the present IANA operator.

How do we intend to codify these characteristics of the "separate
mechanism" so that the GAC can be assured that they will be consulted in
case of change of the IANA operator? Maybe as part of a MOU between the
Oversight Council and GAC+ALAC+GNSO+CCSNO?



On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Allan MacGillivray <
allan.macgillivray at cira.ca> wrote:

>  I see the “oversight council” as being a body that deals with IANA
> compliance with day-to-day SLA-type responsibilities e.g. the current
> performance metric that 80% of root zone file and WHOIS database change
> requests be completed within 21 days.  I would not expect that governments
> (other than those that are ccTLD operators) would have much interest in
> this. However, were there to be major review of these functions, such as
> that which the NTIA initiated in 2011 with its NOI, or to change the
> operator, then I would expect that the responsibility for conducting such a
> review would not fall on the ‘oversight council’ alone and that in whatever
> mechanism that would be established, there could be a role for governments.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Guru Acharya
> *Sent:* October-29-14 8:32 AM
> *To:* Becky Burr
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org; Lindeberg, Elise
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs
> the other two communities
>
>
>
> Becky. I agree with your initial assessment that the "oversight council"
> would focus on "technical and operational issues" (as opposed to policy
> issues); and therefore GAC participation in the council will not be
> required even though GAC participation at an equal footing will not be
> inconsistent with the multi-stakeholder model.
>
>
>
> However, I think GAC participation in the council might be essential in
> the scenario where the oversight council decides to change the IANA
> operator in the future. If the council decides to contract a different
> operator (different from ICANN) in the future, would it not lead to various
> policy issues such as jurisdiction of the new IANA operator, financing of
> the new IANA operator etc - where the insight of the GAC may be beneficial?
>
>
>
> Therefore I think GAC should be a part of the oversight council.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Guru
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Elise, very helpful.  I was thinking that the “oversight counsel”
> would focus on technical and operational issues as opposed to policy issues
> ... But policy for IANA would remain in existing ICANN processes.  Could
> you help me understand which technical/operational IANA services might
> raise “public interest” concerns?  I agree with you that having some GAC
> reps on a Oversight Counsel would not be inconsistent with the Strickling
> view, but I am curious about why GAC might want to participate in that kind
> of counsel.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141029/0c47f459/attachment.html>