[discuss] Problem definition 1, version 5

[Thomas Lowenhaupt]

I have a comment/suggestion and a question about point 2:
> 2. ICANN has a zero-cost contract with the US government to perform
> >>the IANA functions. The US government authorizes changes made to
> >>the root zone by verifying that ICANN abides by publicly documented
> >>policies prior to the changes being submitted for implementation.

Comment/Suggestion: Where the second sentence says "The US government 
authorizes changes made to the root zone by verifying that ICANN abides 
by publicly documented policies prior to the changes being submitted for 
implementation." the process being discussed might be made clearer by 
adding an IANA role statement. With this it would read: "After IANA 
verifies that ICANN has conformed to publicly documented review 
policies, the US government authorizes that changes be made to the root 
zone."

Question: First a bit of background. I'm involved with the application 
by the city of New York for the .nyc TLD. In my capacity as a member of 
city hall's .NYC Advisory Board, this past November I sought guidance 
for the new administration as to the meaning of section C.2.9.2.d of the 
IANA agreement. Section C.2.9.2.d requires input from relevant 
stakeholders. In a city of 8.2 million residents I sought clarity as to 
how input from relevant stakeholders might be demonstrated. My request 
to the NTIA for documentation on its C.2.9.2.d requirements remains, I 
presume, under review / in-process. </background> My question: How do we 
create a governance ecology that empowers and enables cities and 
Internet users to object to an unclear or under-applied review process?

Thomas Lowenhaupt

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140122/de22b65b/attachment.html>