[discuss] Opportunity for input on the development process forIANAoversight transition plan

Wed Mar 26 07:34:29 UTC 2014

Please send your input to the process to ianatransition at icann.org

On 3/25/14 4:58 PM, "wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

>http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/one-possible-roadmap-for-iana-ev
>olution/153
> 
>Avri´s proposal for a IANA Stewarship Group is a good starter to avoid
>conflict of interest issues.
> 
>wolfgang
> 
>
>________________________________
>
>Von: discuss-bounces at 1net.org im Auftrag von Nick Ashton-Hart
>Gesendet: Di 25.03.2014 09:51
>An: Seun Ojedeji
>Cc: 1Net List; John Curran
>Betreff: Re: [discuss] Opportunity for input on the development process
>forIANAoversight transition plan
>
>
>Dear Seun, these are useful ideas, but I think there's a step that needs
>to happen in advance of this.
>
>The first question to ask is: Should ICANN staff oversee the consultation
>process, or should it be non-staff-led?
>
>I think there's a problem if ICANN - or the RIR - staff this directly for
>several reasons, most profoundly that there are stakeholders that will
>see it as a conflict of interest for staff members to run a process that
>affects the organisation that pays them every month.
>
>I think it would be better to consider something like this:
>
>1) Existing consultation is used to identify the elements of the terms of
>reference for the process: how it is to be run, etc.
>2) The results of that should be turned into terms of reference for a
>third party to oversee process-wise.
>3) A suitable person or persons would then be selected to take on the
>operational aspects of execution.
>
>This is very like the independent reviews process. After all, why not
>operate in a way that nobody can suggest is biased for any reason? The
>only way to escape those charges being made, I think, is for the process
>to be run in a way that is completely impartial: it would have to exclude
>as potential execution partners anyone with a financial interest in the
>domain name industry, for example.
>
>This independent operationalisation process would be paid for by ICANN
>and the RIRs on some equitable basis.
>
>On 25 Mar 2014, at 09:31, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>	Yeah Nick, I agree it covers the technical sides well. However we all
>agree that this is not the entire side of the stakeholders.
>	Generally, my suggestion will be that ICANN encourage all stakeholders
>to discourse this within their "known" regional stakeholder engagement
>events within the year and proposals/contributions that come out of each
>of them gets collected in an inclusive and transparent manner.
>	ICANN does not necessarily need to list those names on the timeline,
>however it should let the names list itself.
>	To achieve that, I recommend ICANN do the following:
>	- Define a list of requirement that makes an organisation to be
>recognised as a stakeholder. In other to be realistic, the requirement
>should only consider regional and global establishment (as it's expected
>that they will coordinate with their children stakeholder). It should
>also include in the requirement a general number for each of the
>stakeholder group. So for instance, it can say 5 per the 4 major
>stakeholder category.
>	For technical, all RIR can be 1 out of the category for technical.
>	- Once this requirement is set, a call for submission should be released
>and each stakeholder should indicate the event that will produce their
>contribution and comments.(ICANN may attend or not)
>	- Once application closes, the list of events that will produce the
>contribution can be published.
>	- The template for providing  contribution should be defined. This
>should indicate maximum number of pages and should address the specific
>problem and proposed solution
>	- The contributions that emerge should be collected in a transparent
>manner
>	- ICANN should look at them and categorise those that seem to address
>similar problem and provide similar solution.
>	- ICANN should publish the categorization
>	- Then a physical meeting should be initiated where the few proposal
>then gets presented.
>
>	It will help ensure that the overall responsibility of the process is on
>the global community. It will clear the concern of ICANN selecting
>events. Filling the form will also mean commitment from the side of those
>that apply.(an EOI kind-of).
>
>	Regards
>
>	sent from Google nexus 4
>	kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
>	On 25 Mar 2014 15:39, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <nashton at ccianet.org> wrote:
>	
>
>		That set of meetings will cover the technical community well and is a
>good start - but there will need to be a sustained outreach beyond that.
>It is also not going to be sufficient to rely upon email lists or other
>technological mechanisms - many, especially in governments, simply don't
>work that way. This process will need to got to where non-technical
>stakeholders go, not oblige them to go to technical community meetings.
>		
>		My 0.02
>		
>		On 25 Mar 2014, at 08:31, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
>wrote:
>		
>		> Hi all,
>		> The slides are up at
>		> http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-iana-accountability
>		> The last slide includes a timeline with many opportunities for
>dialogue.
>		>
>		> On 3/24/14 5:22 PM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>		>
>		>> The draft timeline (link provided below) is nothing more than a list
>of
>		>> ICANN meetings, each described as a "meeting of the global
>		>> multistakeholder
>		>> community". No other events are included.
>		>>
>		>> Of course many, if not most, of the global multistakeholder
>community do
>		>> not
>		>> attend ICANN meetings. Many people with only  a passing interest in
>the
>		>> day
>		>> to day operations of ICANN have an interest in how this transfer of
>		>> powers
>		>> is resolved.
>		>>
>		>> One would hope consultation spreads well beyond the narrow set of
>		>> stakeholders involved in ICANN.
>		>>
>		>>
>		>> Ian Peter.
>		>>
>		>>
>		>> -----Original Message-----
>		>> From: John Curran
>		>> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 8:08 PM
>		>> To: 1Net List
>		>> Subject: [discuss] Opportunity for input on the development process
>for
>		>> IANAoversight transition plan
>		>>
>		>> 1net Discuss Participants -
>		>>
>		>> Folks may be aware that after the NTIA announcement,  ICANN released
>		>> a draft timeline for development of an IANA oversight transition
>plan -
>		>>
>		>>
>		>> 
>http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/functions-transfer-process-1
>		>> 4mar14-en.pdf
>		>>
>		>> Today at ICANN 49 in Singapore, there was a session which discussed
>		>> the need to develop an IANA Accountability plan, as it will be
>necessary
>		>> to provide NTIA with a community-wide plan for transition of the
>oversight
>		>> duties which they presently perform.
>		>>
>		>> ICANN is coordinating the effort to develop this plan for IANA
>transition,
>		>> and the first step is establishing a formal timeline and process for
>plan
>		>> development.
>		>>
>		>> ICANN has provided a mail list for expedited input on the _process_
>to be
>		>> used for IANA transition plan development. This includes items such
>as
>		>> feedback on the timeline document above, engagement processes, etc.
>		>>
>		>> The list is here: <ianatransition at icann.org>  (An public archive is
>also
>		>> available here: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/>)
>		>>
>		>> Note that the goal is to gather the input on the plan development
>process
>		>> to
>		>> be used by 27 March 2014, and then combine the mail list discussion
>and
>		>> the
>		>> discussions happening at ICANN 49, with the resulting timeline and
>next
>		>> steps
>		>> to be released for public comment and community feedback on 7 April
>2014.
>		>>
>		>> If you have specific views on process for development of the IANA
>		>> transition
>		>> plan, I would suggest that you contribute promptly.  If I see an
>official
>		>> ICANN
>		>> announcement on this matter, I will forward to 1net and you can
>discard
>		>> this
>		>> email.
>		>>
>		>> FYI,
>		>> /John
>		>>
>		>> Disclaimer:  My views alone.
>		>>
>		>>
>		>> _______________________________________________
>		>> 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
>		
>		
>		_______________________________________________
>		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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5097 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140326/cc2e451b/smime-0001.p7s>