Dear Fouad,

Reply in in-line

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> wrote:

First I am not in favour of the wording Oversight Council or any such attempts of councils and new orgs etc.

In the IANA sense of things, I'd stick with an ad-hoc committee that would be put together with representation beyond a registry controlled group. This committee can be well equipped to deal with SLA and contractual agreements etc.

Are you suggesting an ad-hoc committee inside ICANN? How can an ad-hoc committee inside ICANN have a contractual agreement with IANA that is also within ICANN? If you are suggesting an ad-hoc committee outside the ICANN umbrella then thats exactly what we are calling an Oversight Council.

Such a committee must be established on the basis of a multistakeholder representation that is renewed each year in an open and transparent manner where openess, diversity, inclusiveness and the user perspective is well represented.

In your ad-hoc committee, we are dealing with Beckys suggestion of whether only registeries should be part of the committee because the day to day SLA monitoring is technical and operational without any policy implications. Therefore, if you are suggesting a MS representation beyond the registeries, request you to explain how you are countering Beckys rationale?

Whoever says this is impractical may be over looking the fact that there is similarity with IGF MAG and various ICANN AC/OC selection processes though not optimal but indeed adoptable with certain improvements.

Nobody is contesting that there can be a selection/nomination process with sufficient accountability checks.

Making IANA prone to new councils or orgs etc is impractical. IANA can itself exist independently with an Advisory or Management committee with rotating yearly membership but contractual staffing.

I dont understand how IANA is suddenly independent? Are you suggesting that IANA be transferred to a new entity?

Best

Found