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

Wed Apr 2 23:29:19 UTC 2014

Yes, but without resolution….

From: Brenden Kuerbis [mailto:bnkuerbi at syr.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 4:01 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Shatan, Gregory S.; discuss at 1net.org; ianatransition at icann.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] [IANAtransition] A Summary of IANA Oversight Transition Tasks and Issues

On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:bnkuerbi at syr.edu>]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 10:49 AM
> To: Shatan, Gregory S.
> Cc: discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>; ianatransition at icann.org<mailto: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><mailto: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<mailto: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/c688afdb/attachment-0001.html>