[CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments
Donna.Austin at ariservices.com
Fri Jun 5 23:23:26 UTC 2015
To Milton’s point:
“Wouldn’t that control also extend to calling for an RFP to see if it could get a better service or better deal from someone else?”
Under the process that we have developed, my understanding is we would only get to the point of calling for an RFP after following quite a detailed escalation path that has resulted from continued poor performance of the IANA function that was not able to be remedied. I don’t believe under the process we have developed, an RFP could be called for to see if you could get a better service or better deal from someone else. So if the Board was to launch an RFP, it should only be able to do so if it followed the same path.
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Friday, 5 June 2015 1:53 PM
To: Martin Boyle; Staffan Jonson
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments
From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk]
I’d have issues with ICANN launching an RfP without some sort of community endorsement. After all, ICANN becomes the stewardship home of a community resource because it brings in the multi-stakeholder community.
Why might ICANN want to launch an RfP? If there are good reasons, then we would need to write around this (these) particular reason(s). As a conspiracy theorist, I need convincing that this is a benign power.
We were told that ICANN needed to have majority ‘insider’ control of PTI so that it would be accountable for it. Wouldn’t that control also extend to calling for an RFP to see if it could get a better service or better deal from someone else? How is this power any more or less benign that appointing a majority of the PTI board? If you wanted ICANN in control (and everyone on this thread did) why would you not also want them to be able to call for an RFP?
As for “community endorsement,” I thought when we rejected the Contract Co. idea we were rejecting the idea that the community should be entrusted with the stewardship function. Now you seem to be backtracking and saying that you want the community to be the steward, not ICANN.
I am not saying I disagree with Martin’s point (or that I agree with it). I just think this latest strand of discussion reveals some serious confusion about some fundamental issues.
Milton L Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
Internet Governance Project
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CWG-Stewardship