[discuss] Current drive

Thu Apr 3 22:28:44 UTC 2014

Dear Fouad

It is the same ball game.  IANA has always been part of ICANN, the
"transition" does not mean ICANN taking on a new function that has been
completely out of its sphere of responsibility.  Transition is actually an
excessive word, I would have preferred "autonomy" or a similar word to
"transition".  The same functions that ICANN now performs by being an
Umbrella for IANA, ICANN would continue to do, without US Government
oversight. This is both symbolic and functionally desirable by the Global
Community which always wanted the NTIA oversight somewhat unnecessary.

I would agree with you on one aspect. It is now time for ICANN to make
greater improvements.

Sivasubramanian M

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:44 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> But thats precisely where I am arriving at and with a necessary twist.
> ATRT was for ICANN in its state before the RZM and IANA stewardship
> transition, now its a whole different ball game.
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:39 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Dear Fouad
> >
> >> Accountability to a community within ICANN and to a
> >>
> >> global community are two different issues.
> >
> >
> > ICANN's Accountability and Transparency commitments and its ongoing
> efforts
> > to improve that by the ATRT process is not directed towards
> Accountability
> > to the ICANN community but to the Global Stakeholders.  There have been
> two
> > ATRT exercises so far, and there is a tremendous promise to further
> improve
> > the review exercise, bring up improvements, in a manner more visible to
> the
> > Global Community that ICANN strives towards greater standards of
> > Accountability and Transparency. It will happen.
> >
> > Sivasubramanian M
> >
> >>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> One thing that concerns me is that can ICANN perform both the roles
> >> effectively for RZM planning and management and then the IANA function
> >> planning and management and how will a governance, accountability and
> >> transparency model be developed to ensure that ICANN is at least
> >> accountable. Accountability to a community within ICANN and to a
> >> global community are two different issues. ICANN does find some path
> >> towards this within its infant ms model of 15 years for being
> >> accountable and being transparent is a whole different effort and we
> >> somewhat have a feeling of how true is that.
> >>
> >> So far, I've seen discussions within 1net, ICANN and ISOC trying to
> >> cope with the understanding of stewardship.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > This part of what Wolfgang wrote is very well said:
> >> >
> >> >> ICANN has recognized that it does not live isolated but is part of a
> >> >> broader Internet Governance Ecosystem. If ICANN want
> >> >> s
> >> >> to continue to manage its core business correctly, it has also to
> >> >> invest
> >> >> into an environment which allows to do this.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > If this is agreed, then we also need to agree that such an effort
> >> > requires
> >> > resources, though I wouldn't brand the flow of revenues as "taxes" or
> >> > "rent". If ICANN acknowledges its broader role and starts "investing"
> in
> >> > broader causes of Global Public interest of importance to the
> Internet,
> >> > then
> >> > Michael Gurstein's "other points" are automatically answered.
> >> >
> >> > I would consider the multi-stakeholder model of ICANN as a model
> barely
> >> > 15
> >> > years old, so in its crawling stage of infancy (Compare it with
> >> > Democracy
> >> > which is over 2000 years old :) ) For a model of Governance that is
> >> > barely
> >> > 15 years old, ICANN has done exceedingly well. If we could acknowledge
> >> > it
> >> > this way, then it becomes easier to contribute to make the ICANN
> >> > governance
> >> > better in areas where improvements are needed.
> >> >
> >> > Sivasubramanian M
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:30 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Apr 3, 2014, at 2:33 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> But a couple of other points:
> >> >> 1.       ICANN's privileged position in the Internet gives it the
> >> >> opportunity to obtain significant revenues from the Internet--some
> have
> >> >> described this as "rent" others as a "tax" on the Internet and/or
> >> >> Internet
> >> >> users.
> >> >> 2.       Given the nature of ICANN's role and history these funds I
> >> >> would
> >> >> argue are in a sense funds collected on behalf of the entire Internet
> >> >> community which I, at least, would define as everyone since everyone
> in
> >> >> the
> >> >> world is now in one way or another impacted by the Internet, with
> >> >> increasing
> >> >> numbers more directly involved in contributing either directly or
> >> >> indirectly
> >> >> to the content and operation of the Internet. (If these funds are not
> >> >> collected on behalf of the global internet community who in fact are
> >> >> they
> >> >> being collected for and by what authority?)
> >> >>
> >> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Michael -
> >> >>
> >> >>    If ICANN is collecting more than is necessary for fulfilling its
> >> >> mission regarding
> >> >>    coordination and stability of Internet identifier system
> (including
> >> >> appropriate and
> >> >>    conservative reserve development given such its very important
> >> >> mission), then
> >> >>    that should be fixed; it represents a simple governance challenge
> >> >> with
> >> >> respect
> >> >>    to those paying for the services and the overall cost of delivery.
> >> >>
> >> >>    Repainting the funds as a "tax" in the public trust, and then
> >> >> establishing a regime
> >> >>    for management of them would change the nature of ICANN,
> effectively
> >> >> creating
> >> >>    "taxation" powers that  would normally be reserved for
> governments,
> >> >> and
> >> >> completely
> >> >>    without need, purely resulting from the avoidance of addressing
> what
> >> >> should be
> >> >>    a simple issue.
> >> >>
> >> >>    There are associations which coordinate systems such as credit
> card
> >> >> numbers and
> >> >>    bar codes, and charge the organizations who use those systems,
> with
> >> >> the
> >> >> resulting
> >> >>    imputed costs passed along as a nominal component of what is seen
> by
> >> >> the public.
> >> >>    I'd prefer that none of these organizations starting pretending to
> >> >> be
> >> >> governmental
> >> >>    taxation authorities by collecting more than they need for their
> >> >> narrow
> >> >> mission; the
> >> >>    same logic applies to ICANN in its mission of coordination of the
> >> >> Internet identifier
> >> >>    spaces.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks!
> >> >> /John
> >> >>
> >> >> Disclaimer:  My views alone.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> discuss mailing list
> >> >> discuss at 1net.org
> >> >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> >> > India +91 99524 03099
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > discuss mailing list
> >> > discuss at 1net.org
> >> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards.
> >> --------------------------
> >> Fouad Bajwa
> >> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
> >> My Blog: Internet's Governance:
> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
> >> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> > India +91 99524 03099
>
>
>
> --
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>

-- 
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India +91 99524 03099
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140404/a6012b6e/attachment-0001.html>