[CWG-Stewardship] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: RySG IANA Statement
Seun Ojedeji
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Mon Mar 23 19:22:36 UTC 2015
FWIW, I like to add a personal +1 to Chuck's comment. I think it's a fine
explanation of the key points in the document and of the task at hand.
I will also like to add that the CSC composition and role was quite clear
and received relatively strong level of support among this WG; most agreed
that transparency in the activities of CSC and it's role would diminish the
need for stakeholder representation. The only aspect that was considered
then was whether to have a liaison from MRT in CSC and I understand that
was just towards ensuring transparency. I think the need for such liaison
could be mute If indeed high level of transparency can be ensured through
the mandate of CSC; I understand that CSC is purely technical with major
administrative accountability decision left to the broader community (which
would fall more on CCWG shoulders)
Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 23 Mar 2015 19:56, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
> I’d like to share a few *personal* thoughts on this thread, thoughts
> that I have not vetted with my registry colleagues.
>
>
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think that NTIA said that the
> transition solution itself has to be multi-stakeholder but rather that the
> solution should be developed by multi-stakeholder processes. In other
> words, I don’t think that NTIA said there has to be a multi-stakeholder
> oversight body. The result may be the same but I think there is a
> distinction that is worth noting if I am correct on that.
>
>
>
> Also, I want to emphasize some key points in the RySG statement:
>
> · Note: “*RECOMMENDATION 1.b: Ensure that the compositions of any
> new structures are fit-for-purpose by requiring that membership is based
> upon relevant expertise, experience, and skills.*” As I understand it,
> the RySG statement doesn’t rule out the participation of indirect customers
> in the CSC. Rather it suggests that any such participation should be
> filled with people who have appropriate expertise, experience and skills.
> Is that an unreasonable expectation?
>
> · Note: “*RECOMMENDATION 1.c: Supplement leaner structures with
> robust provisions for openness and transparency to allow the community to
> monitor the performance of IANA, as well as of new oversight bodies.*”
>
> o The RySG statement clearly supports broader community involvement
> through ‘*robust provisions for openness and transparency*’ . . . “to
> enable broader multi-stakeholder participation in oversight of the IANA
> Naming Functions”.
>
> o More specifically, the RySG statement suggests possible procedures
> for doing this:
>
> - “Continuing to conduct regularly scheduled independent audits of
> the performance of the IANA Functions Operator;
> - Making meetings of the CSC open, as appropriate;
> - Publishing transcripts and recordings of CSC meetings;
> - Ensuring that all reporting by the IANA functions operator
> remains timely and transparent so that any interested party could undertake
> unofficial monitoring and flag issues;
> - Providing public comment periods for any material changes
> recommended by the CSC;
> - Soliciting community participation in any regular review of
> the IANA function facilitated by the CSC;”
>
> o And very importantly the statement says: “Ensuring that a decision
> to move the IANA functions was supported by the multi-stakeholder community.
> ”
>
> o So, as I understand it, the RySG statement does not recommend that
> the CSC be tasked with making major decisions beyond its operational
> oversight role.
>
>
>
> Finally, it seems to me that the above suggestions for openness and
> transparency in the RySG statement would provide the multi-stakeholder
> community more involvement in the oversight role than currently exists with
> NTIA.
>
>
>
> I think the above context is important to keep in mind when discussing the
> composition of the CSC.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2015 12:11 PM
> *To:* Alan Greenberg; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Cc:* Tijani BEN JEMAA
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: RySG IANA Statement
>
>
>
> [ON CWG-STEWARDSHIP MAILING LIST]
>
> All:
>
>
>
> This conversation "jumped the tracks" from the CWG-Stewardship mailing
> list to the CCWG-Accountability mailing list (thanks, Alan, for pointing
> that out. I am now bring it back to CWG-Stewardship with this post. If
> future respondents could respond from here on in and not on the
> CCWG-Accountability thread, I think that would be a good thing.
>
>
>
> I've taken the liberty of cc'ing those who have already participated in
> this thread....
>
>
>
>
>
> Greg Shatan
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 3:46 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> wrote:
>
> At 23/03/2015 02:44 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On 23 March 2015 at 05:25, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com > wrote:
>
> I recognize that the registries have a unique and significant interest in
> the continuing operational excellence of the IANA Functions.
>
> However, I believe there needs to be a voice and a role for the rest of
> the multistakeholder community in the CSC. I don't think this is what the
> NTIA was looking for when it sought to "transition key Internet domain name
> functions to the global multistakeholder community." A customer only CSC
> with no other organized oversight body sounds like a registries paradise,
> but not a multistakeholder reality.
>
>
> I think the difference is in the "in the CSC" bit. If there is a customer
> committee for the customers, that body isn't the multistakeholder oversight
> body. It can't function as such.
>
> If the CWG ends up trying to squeeze everything (customer representation,
> multistakeholder oversight, etc) into one body, it is not going to be able
> to create a coherent proposal - in my opinion.
>
> cheers
> Jordan
>
>
> I am not sure why this discussion is taking place on the Accountability
> mailing list. Regardles, I note that including a MS component for
> transparency and the ability to raise red flags does not change the overall
> nature of the body.
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150323/09cd3a6f/attachment.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list