[discuss] Opportunity for input on the development process for IANA oversight transition plan
jcurran at istaff.org
Tue Mar 25 09:32:48 UTC 2014
On Mar 25, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at ccianet.org> wrote:
> The first question to ask is: Should ICANN staff oversee the consultation process, or should it be non-staff-led?
> 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.
While I very much believe that the staff of the various Internet identifier registries
(names and addresses) are capable of professionally facilitating a multistakeholder
process, I do agree that caution is warranted when the particular topic may involve
accountability and transparency aspects of the very same organizations.
From the NTIA announcement, I see the following statements (my paraphrasing) -
- "ICANN is uniquely positioned ... as the appropriate party to convene the
multistakeholder process to develop the transition plan."
- "NTIA ...expects that ... ICANN will work collaboratively with the directly
affected parties, ... including IETF, the IAB, the Internet Society (ISOC),
the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), top level domain name operators,
VeriSign, and other interested global stakeholders."
My reading is that ICANN is convening everyone (didn't some of that happen
yesterday in Singapore? :-), but that the actual process can be multistakeholder
and involve the "directly affected parties" and "interested global stakeholders"
I would recommend that any suggestions regarding process mechanisms which
are true to the above statements (but also provide due regard to the potential
for conflict-of-interest) be submitted asap per the <ianatransition at icann.org>
Disclaimer: My views alone.
More information about the discuss