[Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Appointments to the NTIA/IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group

[Kerry Brown]

I agree with Evan on this. The ALAC is composed of many ALSs that have very different views. Many of them could be classified as "civil society". During the ATLAS II summit at the London ICANN meeting I was part of a thematic group working on accountability and transparency. There were many first time ICANN participants in the group. It was quickly evident that some ICANN insiders in the group felt that any accountability body would have to be made up of people from the ICANN community because no one else would be familiar enough with the ICANN process. To a person all of the first timers couldn't understand this thinking. They found it impossible to think that ICANN could oversee it's own accountability. This lead me to the conclusion that in order to have any credibility outside of ICANN any accountability body would have to be at a very long arm's length from ICANN itself.


Kerry Brown?

________________________________
From: Chapter-delegates <chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 8:46 AM
To: Alejandro Pisanty
Cc: Chapter Delegates; Demi Getschko
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Appointments to the NTIA/IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group

On 3 July 2014 05:46, Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty at gmail.com<mailto:apisanty at gmail.com>> wrote:

ISOC is the only member of the Coordination Group that is not simultaneously a directly interested party, a "client" of IANA or a structural participant in ICANN.


FWIW, I would also generally add to that set of characteristics, the people currently being considered to fill the spots on the CG by ICANN At-Large. While coming from a "structural participant in ICANN", the At-Large delegates are also non-conflicted, and seek to protect the interests of those who are neither sellers nor buyers of domains. (Indeed, such perspective of At-Large is mandated in the ICANN bylaws.)  It is no coincidence that so many ISOC chapters are also At-Large Structures.

The ALAC and ISOC delegates have highly common interest at the CG, and the potential to be an effective coalition. No doubt there will be other, self-interested coalitions with which they will need to contend.

I have already been hearing from some corners of ICANN a sentiment that oversight of IANA should "naturally" fall to those with whom ICANN has contractual relations. If carried through to its logical conclusion this perspective would, in effect, put the regulated in change of the regulator; it needs to be resisted.

Indeed, a trusted insider has suggested to me that the reference by some within ICANN to the current situation as "IANA transition" (as opposed to the more accurate "IANA stewardship transition") is deliberate, and an attempt to shift (or at least blur) the focus.

This will indeed be an interesting environment.

- Evan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140703/e9eaa43d/attachment.htm>