[discuss] Dear ICANN - Feedback

[Ian Peter]

George,

I would not describe it an an operational function myself. Nothing 
operational is involved. NTIA checks to see that appropriate policies have 
been followed. And, as you say, ticks the box. Then the change occurs. I 
don't call that operational, but maybe that is just semantics. Many people 
call this the "oversight" function, but that is not a good description 
either.

In any case, who performs this  previous NTIA role under new structures (if 
anyone)  is the question of broader interest. Which is why I suggest a 
committee with wider involvement to examine how this best evolves.

Your statement below is a little confusing to me, but to be clear I am only 
suggesting a committee to examine how the function evolves and make 
recommendations. I am not suggesting a committee to perform the "oversight" 
function.

Ian Peter

-----Original Message----- 
From: George Sadowsky
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 11:26 AM
To: Peter Ian
Cc: ianatransition at icann.org ; discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Dear ICANN - Feedback

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.

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