[discuss] Opportunity for input on the development process for IANAoversight transition plan

Tue Mar 25 09:06:40 UTC 2014

Hello Nick, kindly find my response inset

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 25 Mar 2014 16:51, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <nashton at ccianet.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Seun, these are useful ideas, but I think there's a step that needs
to happen in advance of this.
>
> The first question to ask is: Should ICANN staff oversee the consultation
process, or should it be non-staff-led?
>
Well the NTIA determined that ICANN would coordinate this and really unless
we are not being transparent in the process, it should not necessarily be a
major issue. Again remember that all ICANN will be doing is administrative
and the final resolution will be at the 1 time neutral ground event.

> I think there's a problem if ICANN - or the RIR - staff this directly for
several reasons, most profoundly that there are stakeholders that will see
it as a conflict of interest for staff members to run a process that
affects the organisation that pays them every month.
>
The only place I foresee there could be an issue is the categorisation so
perhaps the categorisation of the contributions can be done with the 20
stakeholder reps in sync.

> I think it would be better to consider something like this:
>
> 1) Existing consultation is used to identify the elements of the terms of
reference for the process: how it is to be run, etc.
> 2) The results of that should be turned into terms of reference for a
third party to oversee process-wise.
>
> 3) A suitable person or persons would then be selected to take on the
operational aspects of execution.
>
2 and 3 cannot happen because it will be beyond ICANN mandate.

Cheers!
>
> On 25 Mar 2014, at 09:31, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah Nick, I agree it covers the technical sides well. However we all
agree that this is not the entire side of the stakeholders.
>> Generally, my suggestion will be that ICANN encourage all stakeholders
to discourse this within their "known" regional stakeholder engagement
events within the year and proposals/contributions that come out of each of
them gets collected in an inclusive and transparent manner.
>> ICANN does not necessarily need to list those names on the timeline,
however it should let the names list itself.
>> To achieve that, I recommend ICANN do the following:
>> - Define a list of requirement that makes an organisation to be
recognised as a stakeholder. In other to be realistic, the requirement
should only consider regional and global establishment (as it's expected
that they will coordinate with their children stakeholder). It should also
include in the requirement a general number for each of the stakeholder
group. So for instance, it can say 5 per the 4 major stakeholder category.
>> For technical, all RIR can be 1 out of the category for technical.
>> - Once this requirement is set, a call for submission should be released
and each stakeholder should indicate the event that will produce their
contribution and comments.(ICANN may attend or not)
>> - Once application closes, the list of events that will produce the
contribution can be published.
>> - The template for providing  contribution should be defined. This
should indicate maximum number of pages and should address the specific
problem and proposed solution
>> - The contributions that emerge should be collected in a transparent
manner
>> - ICANN should look at them and categorise those that seem to address
similar problem and provide similar solution.
>> - ICANN should publish the categorization
>> - Then a physical meeting should be initiated where the few proposal
then gets presented.
>>
>> It will help ensure that the overall responsibility of the process is on
the global community. It will clear the concern of ICANN selecting events.
Filling the form will also mean commitment from the side of those that
apply.(an EOI kind-of).
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> sent from Google nexus 4
>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>
>> On 25 Mar 2014 15:39, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <nashton at ccianet.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> That set of meetings will cover the technical community well and is a
good start - but there will need to be a sustained outreach beyond that. It
is also not going to be sufficient to rely upon email lists or other
technological mechanisms - many, especially in governments, simply don't
work that way. This process will need to got to where non-technical
stakeholders go, not oblige them to go to technical community meetings.
>>>
>>> My 0.02
>>>
>>> On 25 Mar 2014, at 08:31, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi all,
>>> > The slides are up at
>>> > http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-iana-accountability
>>> > The last slide includes a timeline with many opportunities for
dialogue.
>>> >
>>> > On 3/24/14 5:22 PM, "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.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: John Curran
>>> >> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 8:08 PM
>>> >> To: 1Net List
>>> >> Subject: [discuss] Opportunity for input on the development process
for
>>> >> IANAoversight transition plan
>>> >>
>>> >> 1net Discuss Participants -
>>> >>
>>> >> Folks may be aware that after the NTIA announcement,  ICANN released
>>> >> a draft timeline for development of an IANA oversight transition
plan -
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/functions-transfer-process-1
>>> >> 4mar14-en.pdf
>>> >>
>>> >> Today at ICANN 49 in Singapore, there was a session which discussed
>>> >> the need to develop an IANA Accountability plan, as it will be
necessary
>>> >> to provide NTIA with a community-wide plan for transition of the
oversight
>>> >> duties which they presently perform.
>>> >>
>>> >> ICANN is coordinating the effort to develop this plan for IANA
transition,
>>> >> and the first step is establishing a formal timeline and process for
plan
>>> >> development.
>>> >>
>>> >> ICANN has provided a mail list for expedited input on the _process_
to be
>>> >> used for IANA transition plan development. This includes items such
as
>>> >> feedback on the timeline document above, engagement processes, etc.
>>> >>
>>> >> The list is here: <ianatransition at icann.org>  (An public archive is
also
>>> >> available here: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/>)
>>> >>
>>> >> Note that the goal is to gather the input on the plan development
process
>>> >> to
>>> >> be used by 27 March 2014, and then combine the mail list discussion
and
>>> >> the
>>> >> discussions happening at ICANN 49, with the resulting timeline and
next
>>> >> steps
>>> >> to be released for public comment and community feedback on 7 April
2014.
>>> >>
>>> >> If you have specific views on process for development of the IANA
>>> >> transition
>>> >> plan, I would suggest that you contribute promptly.  If I see an
official
>>> >> ICANN
>>> >> announcement on this matter, I will forward to 1net and you can
discard
>>> >> this
>>> >> email.
>>> >>
>>> >> FYI,
>>> >> /John
>>> >>
>>> >> Disclaimer:  My views alone.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140325/05d8b228/attachment.html>