[discuss] Dear ICANN - Feedback

Mon Apr 14 09:14:27 UTC 2014

+1

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:42 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>
> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*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 at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140414/a77b0983/attachment.html>