[discuss] Dear ICANN - Feedback

[parminder]

On Monday 14 April 2014 02:08 PM, parminder wrote:
> SNIP
> There is no meaning in proposing a committee without mentioning how 
> should it be constituted... for instance a committee full of people 
> from what is called as 'ICANN community' will no doubt give recs to 
> keep the function within the ICANN with some fine tuning here and 
> there of accountability mechanisms to the 'community'.

Sorry, I now see that you propose such a committee to have wider 
stakeholder representation.. ... I think it should be almost entirely 
made of 'public interest' actors from beyond the ICANN community...
>
> parminder
>>
>> 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 
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>