<font size="2" face="Verdana" color="#000000 ">Agree. I believe genuinely representative oversight is the real issue, not the nitty gritty functioning of IANA or ICANN.</font><div><font size="2" face="Verdana" color="#000000 "><br></font></div><div><font size="2" face="Verdana" color="#000000 ">Mahesh Uppal<br></font><div class="mb_sig"></div><blockquote class="history_container" type="cite" style="border-left-style:solid;border-width:1px; margin-top:20px; margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;">
<p style="color: #AAAAAA; margin-top: 10px;">On 15-Apr-14 5:45:13 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter@ianpeter.com>wrote:</p>whatever, George...
<br>
<br>Remove the word evolution if it doesnt work for you. My main point here
<br>(speaking to you as an ICANN director) is that you must involve the
<br>community who don't attend ICANN /technical community meetings in decision
<br>making here - including business, governmental, and civil society
<br>representatives (and yes we could spend the next five years deciding how to
<br>select them or just do it). As you already have a committee of 24 - close to
<br>an unworkable size, and with a wider agenda it would seem - I am suggesting
<br>a separate group to consider the specific "oversight" issue from a more
<br>focussed stakeholder perspective.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Ian Peter
<br>
<br>-----Original Message-----
<br>From: George Sadowsky
<br>Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:09 AM
<br>To: Peter Ian
<br>Cc: ianatransition@icann.org ; discuss@1net.org
<br>Subject: Re: [discuss] Dear ICANN - Feedback
<br>
<br>Ian,
<br>
<br>I’m trying to get away from the generalities that may sound nice but don’t
<br>help us to get at ways of leveraging change.
<br>
<br>Are you suggesting a committee to “examine how this function evolves,” the
<br>function being ticking the box? I had thought that we were looking at ways
<br>in which this function could be acceptably transferred. Thjat’s a necessary
<br>condition, and it may be sufficient.
<br>
<br>When you talk about evolution, that’s an entirely different matter. What is
<br>your time frame for this evolution? 20 years? If so, the internet will be
<br>a very different place, and I would question anyone’s ability to predict
<br>what the management and governance issues would be at that time. So I have
<br>the following follow-up questions:
<br>
<br>1. Why are you concerned about evolution rather than focusing on transfer?
<br>
<br>2. Are there any boundaries on your consideration of such evolution? If so,
<br>what are they, and how do they contribute to solving the current problem,
<br>i.e. a transition of the IANA function away from the US Government, based
<br>upon the constraints laid out by NTIA? If not, why is this not just
<br>futuristic intellectual exercise that will not contribute to the current
<br>discussion?
<br>
<br>3. What would the terms of reference of the committee be? What expertise
<br>would the committee have to have in order that its recommendations would be
<br>consistent with the current continuation of stable, secure, and resilient
<br>Internet functioning?
<br>
<br>Regards,
<br>
<br>George
<br>
<br>
<br>On Apr 13, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter@ianpeter.com> wrote:
<br>
<br>> George,
<br>>
<br>> I would not describe it an an operational function myself. Nothing
<br>> operational is involved. NTIA checks to see that appropriate policies have
<br>> been followed. And, as you say, ticks the box. Then the change occurs. I
<br>> don't call that operational, but maybe that is just semantics. Many people
<br>> call this the "oversight" function, but that is not a good description
<br>> either.
<br>>
<br>> In any case, who performs this previous NTIA role under new structures
<br>> (if anyone) is the question of broader interest. Which is why I suggest a
<br>> committee with wider involvement to examine how this best evolves.
<br>>
<br>> Your statement below is a little confusing to me, but to be clear I am
<br>> only suggesting a committee to examine how the function evolves and make
<br>> recommendations. I am not suggesting a committee to perform the
<br>> "oversight" function.
<br>>
<br>> Ian Peter
<br>>
<br>> -----Original Message----- From: George Sadowsky
<br>> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 11:26 AM
<br>> To: Peter Ian
<br>> Cc: ianatransition@icann.org ; discuss@1net.org
<br>> Subject: Re: [discuss] Dear ICANN - Feedback
<br>>
<br>> Ian,
<br>>
<br>> I want to probe your response below somewhat further.
<br>>
<br>> At the moment, the IANA operational function that NTIA performs is, in the
<br>> case of any new delegation or redelegation of any entry in the root zone
<br>> file. NTIA checks to see that the appropriate policies have been followed.
<br>> If they have, IANA checks the box, and the change occurs.
<br>>
<br>> Is this the function that you suggest should be delegated to a separate
<br>> committee involving wider representation from the wider multistakeholder
<br>> community involving a much wider range of governmental, civil society and
<br>> business interests?
<br>>
<br>> If not, could you please be precise in describing exactly which other
<br>> functions are to be replaced by this wider group?
<br>>
<br>> George
<br>>
<br>>
<br>>
<br>> On Apr 13, 2014, at 8:58 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter@ianpeter.com> wrote:
<br>>
<br>>> Dear ICANN,
<br>>>
<br>>> You have asked for feedback on your proposal, so here is mine.
<br>>>
<br>>> Firstly, I now think your Steering Committee is fine for most of your
<br>>> initial tasks. I originally did not, as it is narrowly constricted to the
<br>>> technical community rather than the wider multistakeholder community
<br>>> involved with internet governance issues. However, as I can see from the
<br>>> scattered discussions occurring here and on other lists, there seem to be
<br>>> quite a few people wanting to talk about the minutae of day to day
<br>>> operational matters, and your steering committee will serve to bring some
<br>>> focus and structure to those discussions. I would suggest your first task
<br>>> might be to examine which if any of the current functions, each of which
<br>>> seem to have been performed well for over a decade, might need to be
<br>>> re-examined.
<br>>>
<br>>> But for most of us, these discussions are beyond our level of interest,
<br>>> and hence you will notice on this list and on others the number of people
<br>>> who have just stopped engaging.
<br>>>
<br>>> However, there is one issue on which many of us to maintain some
<br>>> interest, and that is the oversight function which was the subject of the
<br>>> NTIA announcement. This has been described as simply clerical, some of us
<br>>> have seen it as largely symbolic, but whatever the reality is, this
<br>>> function has been the subject of contention for over a decade and will
<br>>> continue to be – not so much in the narrow steering committee of the
<br>>> technical groups, but in the wider multistakeholder community involving a
<br>>> much wider range of governmental, civil society and business interests.
<br>>>
<br>>> Which is where my main suggestion lies. I think you need a separate
<br>>> committee to look at this particular issue, and one which involves
<br>>> representation from wider stakeholder groups not directly associated with
<br>>> the technical community – because, in the end, they will make or break
<br>>> any proposal for change here. I urge you to look at the appropriate way
<br>>> to engage this wider stakeholder group – as well, perhaps you could
<br>>> engage this wider and more representative group with involvement at eg
<br>>> the Internet Governance Forum, a notable absentee from your calendar of
<br>>> events.
<br>>>
<br>>> One more suggestion and word of caution. There seems to be a prevailing
<br>>> thought that it doesn’t matter how long it takes to resolve this, and if
<br>>> it goes beyond September 2015 so be it. I disagree. If ICANN and
<br>>> associated bodies cannot come up with a structure for a simple governance
<br>>> function in 18 months – a task any government or corporation could do in
<br>>> less than three months – it will be widely perceived as being incapable
<br>>> and inefficient. People will lose patience and begin to look at other
<br>>> alternatives. So I do suggest that you add some firm timelines to your
<br>>> deliberations.
<br>>>
<br>>> I hope this input is useful to you. I look forward to some more
<br>>> structured discussion in the future, and to a recognition that the sorts
<br>>> of matters largely being discussed here are in many cases not the matters
<br>>> that concern the wider community of interests beyond the technical
<br>>> community. You must structure your activities to engage those wider
<br>>> interests positively.
<br>>>
<br>>> Ian Peter
<br>>>
<br>>> _______________________________________________
<br>>> discuss mailing list
<br>>> discuss@1net.org
<br>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
<br>>
<br>
<br>_______________________________________________
<br>discuss mailing list
<br>discuss@1net.org
<br>http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
<br></ian.peter@ianpeter.com></ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
</blockquote>
</div>