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] <mailto:[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]
> <mailto:[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 <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 <http://www.fossfa.net>) et
> Membre de de Internet Society (www.isoc.org <http://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
>
>
>
|
