[discuss] Dear ICANN - Feedback

Mon Apr 14 08:42:33 UTC 2014

On Monday 14 April 2014 06:56 AM, George Sadowsky wrote:
> Ian,
>
> I want to probe your response below somewhat further.
>
> At the moment, the IANA operational function that NTIA performs is, in the case of any new delegation or redelegation of any entry in the root zone file. NTIA checks to see that the appropriate policies have been followed.  If they have, IANA checks the box, and the change occurs.

This is not an operational function. This is oversight...

The main problem with much of post IANA transition discussion has been 
this elaborate confusion between what is a oversight function and what 
are operational functions...Not sure why we cannot at least agree on 
facts even if we cannot over what should be done next... This dissuasion 
of whether it is oversight or a set of operational functions have been 
going round and round ..

parminder

>
> Is this the function that you suggest should be delegated to a separate committee involving wider representation from the wider multistakeholder community involving a much wider range of governmental, civil society and business interests?
>
> If not, could you please be precise in describing exactly which other functions are to be replaced by this wider group?
>
> George
>
>
>
> On Apr 13, 2014, at 8:58 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear ICANN,
>>
>> You have asked for feedback on your proposal, so here is mine.
>>
>> Firstly, I now think your Steering Committee is fine for most of your initial tasks. I originally did not, as it is narrowly constricted to the technical community rather than the wider multistakeholder community involved with internet governance issues. However, as I can see from the scattered discussions occurring here and on other lists, there seem to be quite a few people wanting to talk about the minutae of day to day operational matters, and your steering committee will serve to bring some focus and structure to those discussions. I would suggest your first task might be to examine which if any of the current functions, each of which seem to have been performed well for over a decade, might need to be re-examined.
>>
>> But for most of us, these discussions are beyond our level of interest, and hence you will notice on this list and on others the number of people who have just stopped engaging.
>>
>> However, there is one issue on which many of us to maintain some interest, and that is the oversight function which was the subject of the NTIA announcement. This has been described as simply clerical, some of us have seen it as largely symbolic, but whatever the reality is, this function has been the subject of contention for over a decade and will continue to be – not so much in the narrow steering committee of the technical groups, but in the wider multistakeholder community involving a much wider range of governmental, civil society and business interests.
>>
>> Which is where my main suggestion lies. I think you need a separate committee to look at this particular issue, and one which involves representation from wider stakeholder groups not directly associated with the technical community – because, in the end, they will make or break any proposal for change here. I urge you to look at the appropriate way to engage this wider stakeholder group – as well, perhaps you could engage this wider and more representative group with involvement at eg the Internet Governance Forum, a notable absentee from your calendar of events.
>>
>> One more suggestion and word of caution. There seems to be a prevailing thought that it doesn’t matter how long it takes to resolve this, and if it goes beyond September 2015 so be it. I disagree. If ICANN and associated bodies cannot come up with a structure for a simple governance function in 18 months – a task any government or corporation could do in less than three months – it will be widely perceived as being incapable and inefficient. People will lose patience and begin to look at other alternatives. So I do suggest that you add some firm timelines to your deliberations.
>>
>> I hope this input is useful to you. I look forward to some more structured discussion in the future, and to a recognition that the sorts of matters largely being discussed here are in many cases not the matters that concern the wider community of interests beyond the technical community. You must structure your activities to engage those wider interests positively.
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>