[discuss] Opportunity for input on the development process forIANAoversight transition plan
Seun Ojedeji
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Wed Mar 26 11:03:00 UTC 2014
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 26 Mar 2014 18:50, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> There are going to be a lot of new ideas, to join the 62+ ideas already
submitted into NETMundial.
>
I had thought those NETMundial submissions were towards a separate goal as
the NTIA announcement was just made recently.
> Right now there is a lot to listen to, not just propose.
>
I think the listening to specifically as a result of the announcement
perhaps has just began. ;) However I agree that it doesn't have to be blown
beyond proportion especially if NTIA is okay with the process.
Cheers!
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140326/4a648d8c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the discuss
mailing list