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

[Sivasubramanian M]

Dear Christian,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you.


Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>



On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel at firsthand.net>
wrote:

> 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
> -------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140711/d67cb5cc/attachment.htm>