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@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@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2015 12:11 PM *To:* Alan Greenberg; cwg-stewardship@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@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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship