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

[Richard Hill]

I agree with Christian. 

Best Richard


Sent from Samsung Mobile

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Christian de Larrinaga <cdel at firsthand.net> </div><div>Date:10/07/2014  11:29  (GMT+01:00) </div><div>To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> </div><div>Cc: ISOC Chapter Delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>,Narelle Clark <narelle at isoc-au.org.au> </div><div>Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] ICANN Accountability was Re: Internet Society Appointments to theNTIA/IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group </div><div>
</div>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/20140711/fb535a7d/attachment-0001.htm>