[Chapter-delegates] ICANN Accountability was Re: Internet Society Appointments to theNTIA/IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group

[Christian de Larrinaga]

Narelle

I agree with Olivier overview apart from the conclusion of "wait and see".

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.

BUT

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.

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.

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.


best


Christian

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> Dear Narelle,
>
> On 10/07/2014 04:29, Narelle Clark wrote:
>> 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.
>
> 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): https://portal.isoc.org

-- 
Christian de Larrinaga
FBCS, CITP, MCMA
-------------------------
@ FirstHand
-------------------------
+44 7989 386778
cdel at firsthand.net
-------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140710/44ff9137/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 599 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140710/44ff9137/attachment.asc>