[discuss] [IANAtransition] A Summary of IANA Oversight Transition Tasks and Issues

Wed Apr 2 20:00:36 UTC 2014

On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 02/04/2014 06:37, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
> > If the DNSA is watching ICANN, and has the right to determine whether
> ICANN (in the DNSA’s view) has followed its processes, and can impliedly
> refuse to implement changes that ICANN believes were properly arrived at
> (if the DNSA disagrees), I am more concerned than ever by the
> “single-stakeholder” (i.e., registries only) nature of the proposed DNSA.
>
> Very clearly, that would put the foxes in charge of the henhouse,

and make a nonsense of the existing multistakeholder mechanisms.
>
> Those with a vested interest are the least trustworthy overseers.
>
>
I thought yesterday was April Fools, not Groundhog Day. Didn't we cover
this last month?

http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-March/002404.html

-- Brenden

>     Brian
>
> > Thanks for pointing out the NCUC meeting and transcript.  In the
> meetings I attended in Singapore, I didn’t see a lot of traction for
> structural separation of the IANA function of ICANN or for the creation of
> a new oversight body to replace the NTIA’s oversight function.  But
> different meetings with different groups bring out different things.  I see
> here that Larry doesn’t want to “put his thumb on the scale” and encourages
> the debate.  I think the NTIA is doing its best to step back and not
> “coach” the multistakeholder community.  That is a good thing.  Nothing is
> a priori off the table unless expressly stated in the NTIA’s press release
> and related documents.  Whether they will find either in scope at the end
> of the day, I can’t know for sure, but I’ve expressed my opinion.
> >
> > Greg Shatan
> >
> > From: Brenden Kuerbis [mailto:bnkuerbi at syr.edu]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 10:49 AM
> > To: Shatan, Gregory S.
> > Cc: discuss at 1net.org; ianatransition at icann.org
> > Subject: Re: [IANAtransition] A Summary of IANA Oversight Transition
> Tasks and Issues
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. <
> GShatan at reedsmith.com<mailto:GShatan at reedsmith.com>> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > Beyond that are the more inventive re-imaginings of IANA functions and
> oversight, such as removing IANA itself from ICANN and making it a
> stand-alone body (e.g., the "DNSA" proposal), which could make
> ICANN-without-IANA the overseer of this new IANA-without-ICANN, and other
> ideas that the NTIA would probably find "out of scope."
> >
> >
> >
> > Two clarifications, just to set the record straight.
> >
> > First, "overseer" can be interpreted too broadly. The IGP proposal does
> not suggest a principal-agent relationship between the DNSA and ICANN. The
> DNSA would be contractually bound to implement changes that followed
> ICANN's defined policy making process.  If ICANN did not follow its defined
> process, then the DNSA would have a grievance. In this manner, the DNSA
> watches but does not direct ICANN.
> >
> > Second, the NTIA has never said nor intimated that structural separation
> would be "out of scope".  In fact, in an open discussion with the NCUC at
> Singapore, Asst Sec Strickling plainly stated that the benefits and costs
> of structural separation is "a debate...the community should have." [1]
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > ---------------------------------------
> > Brenden Kuerbis
> > Postdoctoral Researcher, iSchool, Syracuse University
> > Internet Governance Project || http://internetgovernance.org<
> http://internetgovernance.org/>
> >
> > [1]
> http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/tue-ncuc/transcript-ncuc-25mar14-en.pdf
> >
> > Beyond even that are the wholly unrelated, "let's change what we don't
> like about ICANN," "let's remake some or all of ICANN" and "let's blow up
> ICANN and start again" ideas.  All great fodder for IG-theorizing and even
> future activity, but not when we have such a significant project as that
> outlined above already on our hands.
> >
> > A similar exercise could be done for the transition of the Affirmation
> of Commitments from a US-ICANN document to a multiparty document (which
> might itself change significantly or be replaced).
> >
> > Greg Shatan
> >
> >
> >
> > * * *
> >
> > This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and
> may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are
> on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and
> then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it
> for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you
> for your cooperation.
> >
> > * * *
> >
> > To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you
> that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice
> contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not
> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
> avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and
> local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
> party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
> >
> > Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140402/3594afd6/attachment-0001.html>