[discuss] Dear ICANN - Feedback

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Mon Apr 14 09:11:23 UTC 2014

Hello Ian,

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:58 AM, 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.

Not sure this is necessarily required to be redone at this stage. There are
already exisitng documentation relating to performance that can be
referenced. I think this task could lead to a waste of time and perhaps
distraction. We need to see the committee swing to action within the
direction of the scope so that the community attention and energy will not
be lost. (a lesson which the /1Net steering committee is yet to learn)

> 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

Considering that what you have mentioned above is actually the only task at
hand. Then its perhaps easy to assume that you are not supporting the
current steering committee formation (as i presume getting to steer the
community discussion to produce the final stewardship transition proposal
will be their TOR). Can you confirm if my assumption is in order?

On the issue of representation within the committee, I also had a similar
view in the past. However considering how things unfold (with everyone
wanting to play the leadership role)  i really cannot/have not seen any
realistic way to get the broader multistakeholder (beyound ICANNs)
represented within the committee. I should also note that i don't think the
proposed committee representation is entirely technical. For instance i
don't see GAC, ALAC and a few others as being technical. I think its just
easier to attribute them that way because they are within ICANN (which is
percieved to be more of a technical institution, although i think its
rather more of an administrative institution than technical)

However to have somewhat broader scope of representation i suggest that
representation from IGF be included in the committee(specifically from MAG
members). Nevertheless the committee representatives should in no way
represent their view but the view of the community hence the need to remove
any form of voting in this transitioning process and even within the

> at eg the Internet Governance Forum, a notable absentee from your calendar
> of events.

I for one don't think that calender of event should have been included in
the first place. It makes it looks restrictive. However i understand that
it was perhaps included in an attempt to inform that the wider view of
contributors is sought for.  I think the guideline should have just been
neutral on all the events and provide its own means/process that enables
any event organised to provide their contribution.(I had also suggested
this in my initial proposal)

> 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


*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140414/6763e17a/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list