After reading through the document it seems we have consensus. I look forward to seeing the final edited version which I am sure will trim down the responses. I would just say that I find some of the questions are too 'leading'. On question 8. we can always expect unintended consequences but since we can see the direction in which the framers of the question are heading the points made on the legal controls that can be put in place are valid.
I still feel amazed that a questionnaire needs to go out on whether or not to respect basic norms of good governance.
best
Dorothy K. Gordon
Director-General
Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT
Mobile: 233 265005712
Direct Line: 233 302 683579
Website: www.aiti-kace.com.gh
Encrypt Everything - https://gpgtools.org https://silentcircle.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Avri Doria" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, 24 February, 2015 4:09:07 PM GMT +00:00 Casablanca / Monrovia
Subject: Re: My answers to the CWG-IANA questions
hi,
just added you as an editor.
you can accept and reject edits if you like.
at this point is it Amr, Joy and me (but i am just admining at this point) as editors
avri
On 25-Feb-15 13:00, Joy Liddicoat wrote:
Hi all
Just following up on the call for NSCG policy committee member inputs – thanks Avri for starting the online document.
And thanks Milton for yours as well – I agree with most and have some additional material – so I’ve added yours (Milton) to the online document as well as some substantive comments (on Qns 4, 6, 7 and 8) and made some suggestions for dealing with the alternative views of NSCG members in relation to Q 9 – you will see it in the same document:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U72dVBIuwU3eq8K1e3DWstXNZLOCpcB4YFvKmqHCHQ0/edit?pli=1#
I’m happy to assist in making any final changes and to ensure this is lodged on time as well – or if someone else wishes to, that is ok with me
Joy
From: NCSG-Discuss [ mailto:[log in to unmask] ] On Behalf Of Balleste, Roy
Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 6:56 a.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: My answers to the CWG-IANA questions
+1 on Milton’s draft.
Roy Balleste
Director, Summer in Spain Program
Law Library Director &
Professor of Law
St. Thomas University Law Library
16401 NW 37th Avenue
Miami Gardens, FL 33054
305-623-2341
http://royballeste.org/
From: NCSG-Discuss [ mailto:[log in to unmask] ] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] My answers to the CWG-IANA questions
+1 looks good to me too, although I could quibble about the answer to #4....that is not what it should mean, but you are in a much better position to determine what it means in the context of these discussions.
Thanks for all the work you folks!
Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-02-23 21:34, Olévié Kouami wrote:
Hi !
Great job Milton !
+1
Cheers !
-Olevie-
2015-02-15 20:01 GMT+00:00 Robin Gross < [log in to unmask] >:
Hello Norbert,
Yes, I agree with you and Milton.
Thanks,
Robin
On Feb 10, 2015, at 7:27 PM, Norbert Klein wrote:
Hi Milton and all on the NCSG-DISCUSS list,
I agree with the text from Milton, including the wording as it is. I am open for clarifying re-wordings, but not with softening the statements.
Norbert Klein
Cambodia
On 02/10/2015 03:15 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Dear members:
The CWG on IANA transition is going to collecting community feedback on the IANA transition this week. This exercise is very important because it will influence the CWG’s development of a proposal.
I have gone through the 9 questions they prepared and answered them, you all may be interested in my answers. Most of these answers will probably be uncontroversial on this list, but there may be some room for debate so I would like to get your feedback on my proposed answers
1. Do you believe that the transition from the NTIA should happen (Please provide the reasons for your answer)?
Yes. Unilateral US government control of the IANA functions contract is not compatible with the multistakeholder model
2. Are you comfortable with ICANN as policy-maker also being the IANA operator without the benefit of external oversight?
No.
3. Should registries, as the primary customers of the IANA functions, have more of a say as to which transition proposal is acceptable?
The NTIA has made it clear that all major stakeholder groups, including registries, need to accept the transition proposal. Registries should have an influential role in any oversight mechanisms of the naming-related IANA functions, but need not have a privileged role in the selection of proposals.
4. What does functional separation of IANA from ICANN mean to you? (this is not referring to having another operator than ICANN performing the IANA functions but rather the internal separation between ICANN and IANA in the context where ICANN is the IANA operator)
Functional separation means that IANA is a department of ICANN under the same management as the rest of ICANN and without a clearly separated budget or mission.
5. Do you believe the IANA function is adequately separated from ICANN under the current arrangements (internal separation)?
No.
6. In considering the key factors (such as security and stability, ease of separating the IANA function from ICANN, quality of services, accountability mechanisms etc.) for evaluating the various transition proposals what importance would you give to the ability to separate IANA from ICANN (separability) vs. the other factors?
Very high importance, because separability will have major beneficial effects on all the other factors, such as accountability, quality of service, security and stability. Separability increases the leverage of the customers of IANA over performance, security and stability.
7. Given the IANA functions could be separated from ICANN do you believe it would be important for the community to obtain from ICANN on an annual basis the costs for operating IANA including overhead costs?
Yes, very important.
o Would it be important to separate out the costs associated with address and protocol functions?
Less so than the IANA department as a whole
8. Could there be unforeseen impacts relative to selecting a new operator for the IANA functions vs the ICANN policy role (should ICANN determine that there will be another round of new gTLDs, how could it ensure that the new operator would accept this)?
No, a new operator could be contractually bound to accept changes from ICANN that were the product of legitimate policy making processes.
9. Are there other transition models which the CWG should be exploring?
Yes, the new structural separation model proposed by Brenden Kuerbis, Matt Shears, and Avri Doria
Milton L Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org
--
Olévié Ayaovi Agbenyo KOUAMI
Responsable du Projet CERGI Education
Directeur-Adjoint de KT Technologies Informatiques sarl
SG de ESTETIC - Association Togolaise des professionnels des TIC ( http://www.estetic.tg )
ICANN-NPOC Communications Committee Chair ( http://www.icann.org/ et http://www.npoc.org/ )
Membre du FOSSFA ( www.fossfa.net ) et Membre de de Internet Society ( www.isoc.org )
BP : 851 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 98 43 27 72
Skype : olevie1 FB : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé – Togo
|
