CWG-Stewardship

Download

cwg-stewardship@icann.org

November 2014

51 participants
72 discussions

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
by Fouad Bajwa Nov. 3, 2014

Nov. 3, 2014

I don't think that IANA should be evolved as a separate entity at all and create new opportunities for bureaucracies for governments and industry control. The technical community proposals are highly reasonable to not make such a big fuss out of it and help IANA transition under a body that is somewhat messed up but can be improved in the long run however, ICANN would need some changes. The technical community has also shown its concern that it doesn't want the IANA technical and policy function to fall into the hands of the whims of governments because it functions to the technical community's needs adequately in its present environment and role. Your challenge and for the ICG is to propose that most transparent and accountable way forward that ensures an open and inclusive relationship with the Internet community treating stakeholders in their respective roles but not giving preference to one group over another another. I don't have to go through the Internet Governance ideals over and over again here. First ICANN Board control as the final word for IANA affairs would have to be reviewed and should be taken into a broader community review process. I do not trust the ICANN Board to be able to manage both ICANN and IANA in a transparent and accountable way, their progress over the years has had its own set of troubles already. The proposals are interesting but not the final word. The final word will remain with NTIA and thats my concern from a developing country member citizen perspective. I am going through a great deal of suggestions and proposals and all show a similar aspect, don't disturb the IANA technical function and the policies for IANA developed by the community have work so far but require more transparency, accountability and functional relationships with the community ensuring open and inclusive participation in its policy development processes. On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > +1 Option 2 is preferred from my end also. However i also added Option 4 > as a second preference just incase things get delayed with the > accountability process. > > Cheers! > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> > wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> you might wish to see an expanded set of "Options", in a Google Doc which >> has been shared. >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B46mlsyZUFF4bZfeWgGCdqIQHCP2BMOy4KZU4Ri… >> >> So far, I note that the majority of our participants on the At-Large IANA >> Issues WG appears to prefer Option 2. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Olivier >> >> >> >> On 15/10/2014 22:55, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >> >> FYI >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Names >> Community vs the other two communities Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 02:40:47 >> +0530 From: Guru Acharya <gurcharya(a)gmail.com> <gurcharya(a)gmail.com> To: >> cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >> >> How the names community approach will differ from the approach adopted >> by the numbers community and protocols community? >> >> Numbers Community: APNIC has reached consensus on its proposal. >> According to the proposal, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN. It >> proposes to replace NTIA oversight with a Service Level Agreement (SLA) and >> Affirmation of Commitment (AOC) between NRO and ICANN. >> www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1 >> >> Protocols Community: The IETF draft proposal suggests that no >> structural changes are required as a result of the transition. The MOU >> between ICANN and the IETF community will continue to govern the existing >> relationship. Again, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN. >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00 >> >> Therefore, neither the numbers community, nor the protocol community >> appear to be in the direction of suggesting a new MS Oversight Entity to >> replace NTIA and its oversight. Merely contracts between existing entities >> will be updated to replace NTIA oversight. >> >> Can the names community adopt a similar approach? Can a contractual >> agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO be expected to replace >> NTIA oversight? >> >> Clearly NO! This approach can not be adopted by the names community >> because the names community resides within ICANN, which is also the IANA >> operator. Specifically, GNSO and CCNSO are essentially subsets of ICANN, >> and therefore a contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and >> GNSO/CCNSO can not be expected to replace NTIA oversight. >> >> Therefore, it is essential to either >> >> Option (i): create a new legal entity, which has a contractual >> oversight relationship with ICANN. This would be similar toÂ >> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-ian… >> >> Option (ii): expect ICANN to self-regulate >> >> Option (iii): make a new legal entity comprising of CCNSO and GNSO that >> is structurally independent of ICANN and require that new entity to enter >> into a contractual oversight agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) with ICANN. >> >> From the above three options, clearly option (ii) is not acceptable >> because of the lack of trust in the ICANN enhanced accountability process. >> >> I also feel that option (iii) is not feasible because the CCNSO and >> GNSO are heavily integrated with ICANN and structural separation of these >> two communities from ICANN will be in-feasible. >> >> Also, from the Jordan Carter document, the option on page 7 can be >> discarded, which makes ICANN the oversight body, as IANA will continue to >> reside in ICANN, as clearly suggested by the proposals of the protocols and >> numbers community. >> >> Therefore, option (i) is clearly the only option available with the >> names community. >> >> Regards, >> Acharya >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Iana-issues mailing listIana-issues@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues >> >> >> -- >> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Iana-issues mailing list >> Iana-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues >> >> > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: > http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt > email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng > <seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng>* > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > > _______________________________________________ > Iana-issues mailing list > Iana-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa

34 129

IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 1 Proposal – 1 November 2014 Draft
by Gomes, Chuck Nov. 3, 2014

Nov. 3, 2014

On behalf of the RFP 1-2A-2B subgroup I have attached the IANA Stewardship Transition CWG RFP Section 1 Proposal – 1 November 2014 Draft for review and discussion by the full CWG. Grace – Please post it on the CWG wiki. Chuck “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

2 1