[discuss] The NTIA/ICANN transitioning Process

Sat Mar 29 19:17:44 UTC 2014

Hello all,

On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>wrote:

> .....few will disagree that ICANN has been unable to deliver on it's role
> as per the contract.--
>
Just to correct the first sentence in my previous mail (which is a double
negative :)). I meant to write:
.....few will disagree *on the conclusion* that ICANN has been *able* to
deliver on it's role as per the contract...

Also where i used exited was definitely meant to be *excited* ;)

Cheers!
PS: Thanks to Vint for pointing this out to me on another list

On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> There has been quite a lot of traffic on this subject and from all
> indication only a few will disagree that ICANN has been unable to deliver
> on it's role as per the contract. This means that operation wise ICANN is
> well positioned. What we have all been clamouring for (before the
> announcement) was the removal of the USG oversight which puts the USG in a
> position to determine how ICANN  *administratively* operate. Which also
> restrict ICANN from fully serving the global community in all fairness. I
> was speaking with a Sudanese fellow who mentioned how difficult it was for
> him to attend the ICANN meetings and how ICANN has made effort to enable
> him attend. This is an example of a problem of the USG oversight which
> unfortunately is beyond ICANN(the con side of the current oversight). A
> Sudanese that reads the NTIA statement will be glad that there is now hope.
> So a scenario to ponder on will be; if the NTIA statement is implemented
> will it improve the Sudanese participation? Expected answer should be yes.
> While attending meeting was used as an example, this extend to the business
> side.
> The pro side of the current oversight is that it has ensured that ICANN
> delivers the contract terms accordingly.
>
> However the question is how do we ensure that ICANN does not get exited of
> it's new "freedom" and bring us back to current status-quo?
>
> It is therefore obvious that ICANN processes at the top needs to be
> updated and I think the top is the organisation's *bylaw*. The bylaw needs
> to be updated to reflect the pro advantage of the NTIA oversight without
> introducing a new governmental or inter-governmental monopoly.
>
> The update would have just been done by the ever improving ICANN
> multistakeholder environment. However the NTIA has given his requirement
> for the transition which indicates that the proposed new process should be
> developed in consultation with all stakeholder interested. This is where
> the development process goes beyond ICANN.
> So ICANN should therefore put up a process to involving stakeholders
> beyond it's immediate multistakeholder platform.[1]
>
> Regards
> 1. I have sent in some suggestion on how other stakeholder beyond ICANN
> can be included during the call initiated for this by ICANN.
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140329/9363b630/attachment.html>