[discuss] Opportunity for input on the development process for IANA oversight transition plan
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Tue Mar 25 07:03:55 UTC 2014
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 25 Mar 2014 14:27, "George Sadowsky" <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am in Singapore and involved in Internet governance discussions
resulting from the recent NTIA announcement.
I am too ;)
> It was clearly stated at the first meeting that input would be obtained
from many sources, and that the goal of the consultations would be as
inclusive as possible.
Yes and that needs to be practical
> It was also clearly stated that the 1net discussion list -- this list --
would be a significant source of input to the consultations.
Well maybe not necessarily significant but it's one of the sources
> Our community -- the community of people interest in and affected by
Internet governance decisions -- is numerous and distributed around the
globe. It's unrealistic to think that input can be gathered inclusively
through physical meetings.
Yes I agree and budget wise it's also unrealistic and I believe others
know this. However, for me I think the ground for which the few physical
meeting happen is more important. ICANN was mandated to coordinate this
process, however it should not solely do this within it's structure. So
while ICANN discuss this issues within it's community events (since ICANN
community can be seen as a stakeholder) it should organise physical
meeting(1 or 2) on a neutral ground where all stakeholders (including
outside ICANN) come in to discuss their views and that is where an outcome
should be determined.
However, it is possible to contribute through this list, which is being
read by a large number of people.
Yes and no. Yes because this list is open and ofcourse allow for any
contribution. No because of 3 major reasons:
- /1Net does not have/have lost major stakeholder representation.
- It's perceived to be ICANN centric
- It does not have a clarified process to collecting the contributions.
> Please, can we focus somewhat more tightly on the purpose of this list?
We have cross-stakeholder conversations going,
Hmm... that is debatable
but (at least in my opinion) in order to be helpful to progress in Internet
governance, whether for Net Mundial or for a longer term goal such as the
transfer of the stewardship of the IANA functions, can we use this list
productively to be heard in the global Internet governance discussions?
Great suggestion for the SC to come up with a process that will encourage
other stakeholders by-in
>>> ]On 24 Mar 2014 17:23, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>>> The draft timeline (link provided below) is nothing more than a list
of ICANN meetings, each described as a "meeting of the global
multistakeholder community". No other events are included.
>>>> Of course many, if not most, of the global multistakeholder community
do not attend ICANN meetings. Many people with only a passing interest in
the day to day operations of ICANN have an interest in how this transfer of
powers is resolved.
>>>> One would hope consultation spreads well beyond the narrow set of
stakeholders involved in ICANN.
>>>> Ian Peter.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss