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.

We've been round and round on this before, both in the CWG and in RFP3.  In RFP3, the conclusion was that there should be at least one representative from the non-registries portion of the multistakeholder community.  This will aid in keeping this an open, transparent process.

There is at least one positive aspect of this suggestion -- we don't have to worry about the possibility of "capture" since it's already captured.

On other points -- I have been participating (to a more modest extent) in the CCWG as well as in this group.  I think the danger of forum shopping or inconsistent results is way overstated in this document.  There is a very real interest in coordination in both WGs and I think the radical step of foregoing all accountability concerns in this CWG is a radical solution to a very modest issue (and one that is well in hand).  (I would also note that should such a significant change in the remit of both groups be pursued, it would require charter amendments for both groups, to be approved by all of the chartering organizations.)

I would also reject the suggestion that the MRT is excess baggage and there is no need for truly multistakeholder oversight.

We'll need to balance self-interest and public interest if we are to get to the end of the road.

Greg Shatan

.

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz > wrote:

hi all, Martin:

On 22 March 2015 at 18:22, Martin Boyle < Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:

Hi Jordan,

Your comment

>

In the end, between the CWG and the CCWG, we have to deal with the post-contract environment, and we have to have a genuinely multistakeholder solution for the overall oversight of the IANA functions. I don't think a customer-only CSC achieves that, and nor does an IAP - but they are parts of the general accountability puzzle for sure."

worries me.

It seems to imply that we need multi-stakeholder at every level.

I don't think that this is what the NTIA announcement says. Indeed i'd say Customer in CSC has a specific meaning and the CSC should work for customers to ensure good service.

I am sorry that it came across that way because I completely agree with you. I specifically do not think the customer committee has to be the multistakeholder body - my view is that it should be a customer committee.

What I meant was that between CCWG and CWG, we also have to construct the multistakeholder oversight process, that is broader than the customers.

HTH

Jordan

 

Best

Martin

Sent from my iPhone

> On 22 Mar 2015, at 15:03, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz > wrote:

>

> In the end, between the CWG and the CCWG, we have to deal with the post-contract environment, and we have to have a genuinely multistakeholder solution for the overall oversight of the IANA functions. I don't think a customer-only CSC achieves that, and nor does an IAP - but they are parts of the general accountability puzzle for sure.

--

Jordan Carter

Chief Executive

InternetNZ

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)

jordan@internetnz.net.nz

Skype: jordancarter

A better world through a better Internet

_______________________________________________

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list

Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community