<html><head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head><body style="font-family: Optima; font-size: 12pt;"
bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div style="font-size:
12pt;font-family: Optima;"><span style="font-family: Optima;">Thank you
for your thoughtful note. </span>I don't think I'm being harsh - tough
love, perhaps?<br><br>Just to be clear. I am not suggesting gov.us
should change venue away from ICANN now. I hope and expect ICANN will
respond positively to the various comments across a broad spectrum of
communities. ICANN also has very good people. <br><br>But many external
interests will sit on their hands to allow the gov.us to rescind their
claimed unilateral veto over Internet resource policies and then later
look at the process and if it is not squeaky clean find grounds to lever
further activities around top down perhaps multi lateral or via trade
or other treaties to impose agenda. <br><br>This may be unavoidable
whatever happens over the transition arrangements. But we should
fraternally participate so ICANN takes steps to make it clear to show
this process is not just about ICANN, inside ICANN, and for ICANN. That
would make the result a sitting target. <br><br>Fortunately despite the
very tight deadlines coming from ICANN that has submarined much of the
agenda, structures and engagement. The structures have attracted really
good people. Their job is now a bit harder as they need to show the
agenda, process, for their committees and secretariat support including
budget are fit for purpose. But from what I've seen the idea they are
going to need to do some building from the ground up won't be news to
them. <br> <br>I hope they feel they can communicate openly. <br><br><br>Christian
<br><br>Sivasubramanian M wrote:<blockquote
cite="mid:CAHyAo0GUwsYydyy=s3KeD79b4y0awUhjvdhVtFQQp-COaLXgMg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Dear
Christian,</div><div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">
<br></div><div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">It
is alright to consider the role of ICANN as convener of these debates
as a limited role, and not one that would determine the course of the
debate. But you talked about not allowing "the debate to be framed"
which is harsh and unfair. </div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div
class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">And
what are ICANN's "own" interests? I would strike a distinction between a
large business corporation acting in its own interests and a Global
Public Interest body acting in its "own" interests, which might be
largely inseparable from its so called "own" interests. This is because,
on deeper analysis, it is fair to ensure that this process or the
"process to determine the process" is not delayed or captured by any
entity or group of entities uncomfortable with the multi-stakeholder
process with interests contrary to Global Public Interest.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div
class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">I
am actually of the opinion that NTIA could have renounced its role
without preconditions to allow the multi-stakeholder body to internally
determine how its own accountability mechanism could be strengthened.
Such a move would automatically have arisen from within ICANN, would
have possibly originated from At-Large, had there been no such
pre-conditions from NTIA. Such an internal process would naturally have
progressed to include ISOC, IETF and external stakeholders. </div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div
class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">With
the unnecessary conditions stipulated by NTIA to complied with, it is
necessary to ensure that the Transition preparation is not taken away
from ICANN. ICANN needs to remain as part of the process, in a role as a
neutral facilitator, or better still, somewhere between a non-voting
observer and a body entirely steering the process. What we could do is
to ensure that ICANN's participation in the process is by participants
who do not have narrow business interests in the outcome. Fadi Chehade's
general comment that 'it is time for interests to go from ICANN
governance and users to move up' (in single quotes, because it is not
verbatim) indicates that such thinking already exists within ICANN. So
what we need here is ICANN's participation in a neutral role, by those
ICANN participants who are known for their commitment to the larger
cause, which would make ICANN's "own" interests completely and totally
inseparable from Global Public interest.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div
class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">In
saying all this, I am NOT blind to minor issues such as the overlapping
of mailing lists and other complications that Olivier has talked about.
Such imperfections do exist within ICANN, and it requires time for the
necessary changes towards perfection. But despite such imperfections,
ICANN's multi-stakeholder framework remains at least a framework for
Global Public Interest and this offers the greatest hope.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div
class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Thank
you. </div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div
class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy"
target="_blank">Sivasubramanian M</a><br>
<br></div></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:59 PM,
Christian de Larrinaga <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cdel@firsthand.net" target="_blank">cdel@firsthand.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div
style="font-family:Optima;font-size:12pt" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
text="#000000"><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Optima"><span
style="font-family:Optima">Narelle <br><br>I
agree with Olivier overview apart from the conclusion of "wait and
see". <br><br>In my view it is time for this community and IETF and IAB
etc to take the initiative. It is vital that we do not allow the debate
to be framed, held and determined inside ICANN fora. ICANN has and needs
to have its own "internal" debates as an organisation and that is fine.
<br><br>BUT <br><br>The US Government has asked ICANN as it has copious
resources derived from its fifteen years remit to convene the global
communities to reach consensus within a narrowly defined set of purposes
and outcomes it finds acceptable. It has not asked ICANN to own the
conversation, nor determine those outcomes towards itself. <br><br></span>The
Internet Society with partners needs to exert strong leadership
immediately to remind ICANN fraternally that its role as convenor is a
limited one and it must distinguish very clearly between its own
interests in this matter from those that are required for convening an
open and inclusive global dialogue. A dialogue which may come to
differing conclusions than those that ICANN currently views as in its
interests. <br><br>I fear we are reaching a point that the transition
preparation will need to be taken away from ICANN as facilitator unless
ICANN establishes a much clearer hands off approach. <br><br><br>best<br><br><br>Christian
<br><div><div class="h5"><br>Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:<blockquote
type="cite"><pre>Dear Narelle,
On 10/07/2014 04:29, Narelle Clark wrote:
</pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre>at the risk of annoying people by being pedantic, can I ask that this
thread be split into ICANN accountability (or other) topics, and the
issues for the NTIA/IANA Stewardiship Transition be kept on this or
other suitably named subject line?
Clearly one MAJOR issue for the co-ordinating group is to keep the
issues sets cleanly delineated - or to respond appropriately to the
community if it feels the issues can't be separated.
</pre></blockquote><pre>ICANN has been giving mixed signals about this and I must admit this has
confused a lot of people, so the extent I asked Theresa Swinehart this
questions during a Webinar.
Her response has been that the two topics will be treated in different
working groups but are closely linked. They run in parallel with a high
level of coordination between the two.
I believe it is still too early to see how this is all going to work
out. My personal point of view is that many of us have been stunned by
the number of topics and meetings at ICANN 50 and are only just coming
back to our senses, only to find out the discussion's going in all sorts
of directions in a somehow random, chaotic way.
For example, I find it strange that we are discussing these issues on
the Chapter Delegates list when there is an "ICANN Issues" lnternet
Society Mailing list.
I find it surprising that some speak of "IANA Transition" or "IANA
Functions Transition" as if the IANA functions would be transited
*outside* of ICANN. I am surprised to see that some see the
"Coordinating Group" as being a place where the negotiations will take
place; others see it as a coordinating group where each community will
report their own work; others see it as THE decisional body for the
future of those functions; some see it as a technical discussion group
and others like a pure policy group; some see this an an opportunity to
reboot the complete system of "who does what on the Internet"; some are
arguing that only the discussions relating to Domain Names should take
place on the ICANN platform and the other discussions should take place
in their respective operational bodies..... whilst at the same time
ICANN mentions in its FAQ it will retain the running of the functions
BUT says it is just one of the participants in the Coordination Group.
To top the whole confusion, there was a mailing list run by ICANN on the
matter and now discussions are taking place on the newly established
ICANN Web Site and you need a Log-in on it.... and the darn thing is not
particularly easy to use, so some groups are considering making a formal
complaint already, preferring a mailing list to a Web discussion.
Oh and then there is going to be an ICANN accountability thread that's
both closely linked to the IANA thread (ICANN Staff words) but actually
independent... and that thread is actually under the same budget Item in
ICANN's budget.... but we don't know whether it will be accompanied by
the same ICANN Staff or the ATRT2 ICANN Staff...
Wow -- how more complicated can it get?
So my personal point of view has been to wait & see - and the
coordination group will no doubt need to address these issues in its
first meeting in London.
Kind regards,
Olivier
(own views)
_______________________________________________
As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
Chapter Portal (AMS): <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://portal.isoc.org" target="_blank">https://portal.isoc.org</a>
</pre></blockquote><br></div></div><span class=""><font color="#888888"><div>--
<br>Christian de
Larrinaga <br>
FBCS, CITP, MCMA <br>
-------------------------<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">@ FirstHand</span><br
style="font-weight:bold">
-------------------------<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B44%207989%20386778"
value="+447989386778" target="_blank">+44 7989 386778</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:cdel@firsthand.net"
target="_blank">cdel@firsthand.net</a> <br>
-------------------------<br>
</div></font></span></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed<br>
to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society<br>
Chapter Portal (AMS): <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://portal.isoc.org" target="_blank">https://portal.isoc.org</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote><br><div
class="moz-signature">-- <br>Christian de Larrinaga <br>
FBCS, CITP, MCMA <br>
-------------------------<br>
<span style="font-weight: bold;">@ FirstHand</span><br
style="font-weight: bold;">
-------------------------<br>
+44 7989 386778<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cdel@firsthand.net">cdel@firsthand.net</a> <br>
-------------------------<br>
</div></div></body></html>