[discuss] Dear ICANN - Feedback

[Ian Peter]

Parminder, just picking up on one point. You ask why I think oversight is 
not a good description.

Oversight to me implies a degree of independent analysis and bringing to 
bear facts that may have not been considered. If proper and comprehensive 
procedures involving necessary consultations and involvement are in place, 
that should not be necessary.

I think what is actually happening here may be, depending on the final 
solution, much more like quality control. A simple final check that all 
procedures have been carried out correctly before final implementation.

That's my thinking, but I accept people will continue to call it oversight. 
There is also another problem with the word - it has two almost opposite 
meanings in English language depending on context (when you forget to do 
something, it is also called an oversight). So it doesn't translate well and 
may be more trouble than it is worth.


Ian Peter

-----Original Message----- 
From: parminder
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 6:38 PM
To: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Dear ICANN - Feedback


On Monday 14 April 2014 07:15 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> 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.

Why you think it is not a good description... It is plain and simple
oversight...
>
> In any case, who performs this  previous NTIA role under new structures 
> (if anyone)  is the question of broader interest.

But arent ICANN's recent proclamations foreclosing any such
discussion... They already assume that they would perform the role, and
merely speak of accountability mechanisms, which nomenclature signifies
(1) post facto procedures and (2) having loose 'powers' and not the kind
of authority that NTIA  had which was absolute...

> Which is why I suggest a committee with wider involvement to examine how 
> this best evolves.

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'.

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
>


_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss