[Chapter-delegates] [IANAxfer] [Internet Policy] An initial proposalregarding IANA development

Fri Mar 28 23:38:57 PDT 2014

It may interest you. Civil society contribution. Download at the bottom of
a page
http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/37494/en/icann-reform:-recommendations

We believe that reform of ICANN is inevitable if it is to fulfil its
promise as a truly global multi-stakeholder organisation. In order to
succeed, we believe that any reform of ICANN should be guided by the
following principles:

   - Multi-stakeholder, not multilateral
   - Human Rights, in particular the rights to free expression, privacy and
   due process.
   - Transparency & Accountability
   - Inclusiveness & Diversity

We support globalization of ICANN and the IANA functions. However this
process must take place in a way that guarantees   ICANN’s independence
from undue government interference.  In this policy document, we also make
specific recommendations to ensure that the Government Advisory Committee
becomes a more inclusive, transparent and accountable body. We further
propose mechanisms to strengthen the accountability of ICANN’s Board of
Directors.

-
JotHal' jozef [dot] halbersztadt [at] gmail [dot] com
Internet Society Poland http://www.isoc.org.pl

On 29 March 2014 06:56, Sabrina Wilmot <wilmot at isoc.org> wrote:

>  Begin forwarded message:
>
>    Carlos, I would agree except for one thing: ICANN Compliance needs
> focus and strengthening in almost all areas if it is to function as it
> should even now, and even more is needed in transition.
>
>  Michael R. Graham
>
>   Notice: The material in this transmission may contain confidential
> information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure or use
> of this information by you is strictly prohibited. If you have received
> this transmission in error, please delete it, destroy all copies and notify Gnosis
> IP Law, P.C. by return e-mail or by telephone at (847) 997-4223. Thank
> you.
>
>   From: "Carlos Raúl G." <carlosraulg at gmail.com>
> Date: Thursday, March 27, 2014 at 7:58 PM
> To: Vint Cerf <vint at google.com>
> Cc: ISOC Chapter Delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>, "
> internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org" <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>, "
> ianaxfer at elists.isoc.org" <ianaxfer at elists.isoc.org>, ICT Barrett <
> ictbarrett at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [IANAxfer] [Internet Policy] [Chapter-delegates] An initial
> proposalregarding IANA development
>
>   Vint,
>
>  As part of my experience in ATRT2, there is quite good accountability
> and transparency on the policy development process (if you help GAC along),
> there could be a little more on the compliance side (ccTLDs in particular),
> but there is little or no recourse beyond the level of the same Board that
> approves the policy.
>
>  I share the idea that no new entities are needed, just some clearer
> separation between a) policy, b) compliance and c) operations for the
> benefit of clarity for a wider public.
>
>  Cheers
>
> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> +506 8335 2487
> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>
> El 27/03/2014, a las 18:31, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> escribió:
>
>  i think it is quite conceivable that no new institution is needed - what
> is required is a process by which ICANN delivers on transparency and
> accountability processes (note plural). When issues arise, there should be
> recourse mechanisms and options in place. We have some, now, but I think
> they could use some refinement and strengthening.
>
>  vint
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 8:28 PM, "Carlos Raúl G." <carlosraulg at gmail.com>
>  wrote:
>
>>  Then it's only about a separate/different oversight, I would guess?
>>
>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>> +506 8335 2487
>> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>>
>> El 27/03/2014, a las 18:26, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> escribió:
>>
>>   there is already separation within ICANN. IANA is isolated from
>> policymaking practices.
>>
>>  vint
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 4:14 PM, ICT Barrett <ictbarrett at gmail.com>
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> I think there should be a separation as IANA performs their function
>>> well and the stability of the internet from an infrastructure point of view
>>> shouldn't get affected by the policy making process ( taking note that once
>>> policy is decided it would impact on operations ). But I don't this we
>>> should mess with IANAs technical operational processes now.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Kerry-Ann
>>>
>>> > On Mar 28, 2014, at 12:37 AM, Tamer Rizk <trizk at inficron.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>>
>>        Michael R. Graham
> Mchaelgraham at comcast.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
>

<http://www.isoc.org.pl>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140329/d77dfd80/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: EE3EA523-8681-47FF-A37F-DDCFBCC5D659.png
Type: image/png
Size: 46007 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140329/d77dfd80/attachment.png>