[discuss] Opportunity for input on the development process forIANAoversight transition plan
Marilyn Cade
marilynscade at hotmail.com
Wed Mar 26 10:50:15 UTC 2014
There are going to be a lot of new ideas, to join the 62+ ideas already submitted into NETMundial.
Right now there is a lot to listen to, not just propose.
M
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 25, 2014, at 5:00 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>
> http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/one-possible-roadmap-for-iana-evolution/153
>
> Avri´s proposal for a IANA Stewarship Group is a good starter to avoid conflict of interest issues.
>
> wolfgang
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: discuss-bounces at 1net.org im Auftrag von Nick Ashton-Hart
> Gesendet: Di 25.03.2014 09:51
> An: Seun Ojedeji
> Cc: 1Net List; John Curran
> Betreff: Re: [discuss] Opportunity for input on the development process forIANAoversight transition plan
>
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> This is very like the independent reviews process. After all, why not operate in a way that nobody can suggest is biased for any reason? The only way to escape those charges being made, I think, is for the process to be run in a way that is completely impartial: it would have to exclude as potential execution partners anyone with a financial interest in the domain name industry, for example.
>
> This independent operationalisation process would be paid for by ICANN and the RIRs on some equitable basis.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
More information about the discuss
mailing list