Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] RySG IANA Statement
Dear all - this might be of interest to us, too. I hope the co-chairs will take this scope/allocation question up with the CWG Co-Chairs at their meeting on Wednesday. bests Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Date: 22 March 2015 at 16:53 Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RySG IANA Statement To: "Duchesneau, Stephanie" <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Hi all Thanks to the gTLD registries for this interesting input. I wanted to raise a couple of points, related to accountability matters, for wider discussion: * On the links with accountability - I think both CCWG and CWG are clear that the CWG charter says "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of this working group.", and that the CCWG charter says "The CWG-Stewardship's scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the IANA Functions Contract. Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship" A question arises - about how we in CCWG should interpret Issue 3 and recommendation 3A in this paper. Is the recommendation from RySG regarding accountability about: a) avoiding the duplication of structures (e.g. not doubling up development/reform of the IAP, which CCWG is definitely working on), or b) trying to move the matter of the *overall* responsibility for accountable stewardship of the IANA functions to the CCWG? I regard the first interpretation as helpful and clarifying, but the second interpretation as deeply problematic, and so would really appreciate teasing out clarity around this. 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. Looking forward to people's thoughts. best Jordan On 22 March 2015 at 16:25, Duchesneau, Stephanie < Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us> wrote:
Hi All,
With the face-to-face meeting coming up the gTLD Registry participants in the CWG have taken the opportunity to identify shared positions on the IANA Stewardship Transition and the current work of the CWG, and to solicit wider feedback from the RySG.
The attached statement was prepared by gTLD members participating in this working group with input and support from the wider Registries Stakeholder Group. Though no formal vote was taken, all feedback received was constructive and supportive of the statement. It is meant as a follow-on to the RySG comments provided on the Draft IANA proposal, taking into account additional work and developments since December.
We hope you'll take the time to review the statement in advance of the Istanbul meeting and that it provides useful clarity into concerns and recommendations of gTLD Registry representatives participating in this work.
Please do not hesitate to raise any questions or responses.
Best, and safe travels to all heading to Istanbul.
Stephanie
*Stephanie Duchesneau* *Neustar, Inc. / *Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 *Office:* +1.202.533.2623 *Mobile: *+1.703.731.2040 *Fax: * +1.202.533.2623 */* www.neustar.biz ------------------------------
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- 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 * -- 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 *
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. 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.
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 *
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
Hi all, On 23 March 2015 at 05:25, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@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 -- 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 *
Jordan, Note that I am not suggesting the "Noah's Ark" approach with multiple representatives of very possible stakeholder group. I am suggesting a very moderate amount of stakeholder participation. I think it is healthy and necessary to have this. Greg On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:44 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all,
On 23 March 2015 at 05:25, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@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
-- 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 *
I agree with Jordan. Although I doubt if we will need a CSC if we get the „enhancing ICANN’s accountability” right (and I for one won’t need one), the name says it: no point to have more than customers only because it should be limited to deal with IANA services customers’ issues only. It is indeed NOT the multistakeholder oversight mechanism we are trying to design and it should have none of the powers we are discussing. Best, Roelof From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Date: maandag 23 maart 2015 08:44 To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] RySG IANA Statement Hi all, On 23 March 2015 at 05:25, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@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 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet
participants (4)
-
Greg Shatan -
Jordan Carter -
Martin Boyle -
Roelof Meijer