And wouldn't it be a thing if such grievance mechanism were not beholden to the Board and/or Staff for its funding and hiring authority... Anybody think we could get something approximating an "independent judiciary" installed in this transition? I have no idea whether this is realistic, but if it isn't completely pie-in-the-sky then it's worth pushing for. Could this be the "least bad" opportunity to get something like this in place? Dan -- Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. At 10:22 PM -0400 3/16/14, DeeDee Halleck wrote: >Shouldn't there be some sort of statement that the ICANN board and staff >processes must be accountable and transparent, with mechanism for redress >of grievance. >DeeDee > > > > > >On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Rafik Dammak ><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >Hi Everyone, > >(cc NCSG-PC) > >Milton volunteered and drafted this statement regarding the NTIA >announcement. we should be able to discuss (commenting here ><https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VAkGj39ou5YkypFt0Vwqvyd1FTK31Ojm29s_gX-Ugrw/edit?usp=sharing>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VAkGj39ou5YkypFt0Vwqvyd1FTK31Ojm29s_gX-Ugrw/edit?usp=sharing >) and endorse it asap before Singapore meeting to show support and >indicate our initial positions . > >Best Regards, > >Rafik > > >----------statement---------------- > >NCSG Statement on the globalization of the IANA functions > >The Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) welcomes the 13 March 2014 >statement from the U.S. Commerce Department announcing its intention to >"transition key Internet domain name functions to the global >multistakeholder community." We support this move because an Internet >governance regime that gives one national government exclusive powers over >a global resource is bound to be politically biased, divisive and promote >tendencies toward Internet fragmentation. This change is long overdue. > >NCSG supports all 5 of the principles NTIA proposed to guide the >transition. We agree that the transition should: > >* Support and enhance the multistakeholder model; > >* Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS; > >* Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of >the IANA services; > >* Maintain the openness of the Internet; > >* Not replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental >organization. > >It is very important to replace the current system with a carefully >considered, well-designed alternative. We note that noncommercial >stakeholders have been leaders in developing plans for the proposed >transition. Submissions to the Netmundial conference from two NCSG >members, the Internet Governance Project and Avri Doria, have set out >specific blueprints for the transition. > >Consistent with both of these proposals, NCSG proposes an additional >principle to guide the transition. The transition should: > >* Enhance the accountability of ICANN through structural separation of the >DNS root zone management functions from ICANN's policy making functions > >The root zone management functions, which are currently performed by >Verisign, Inc. and IANA under contracts with the U.S. government, are >clerical, technical and operational, The policy making functions of ICANN, >on the other hand, are highly political. NCSG believes that those two >aspects of DNS governance must be kept apart, in separate organizations. >Separating them ensures that those with policy and political objectives >must win support for their ideas in a fair and open policy development >process, and cannot arbitrarily impose them upon Internet users and >service providers by virtue of their control of the operational levers of >the global domain name system. > >The existing IANA contract attempts to keep the two separate; however, if >ICANN simply absorbs the IANA and Verisign functions without any oversight >from the U.S. government, there is a danger that the two could become >integrated and intermingled in unhealthy ways. That is why the NCSG, along >with supporters from other stakeholder groups, will insist on this new >principle of separation during the transition process. > >The Department of Commerce has asked ICANN to "conven[e] stakeholders >across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition >plan." Unfortunately, ICANN's management seems to have interpreted this as >a mandate to implement its own transition plan, in which it would simply >take over the IANA functions with no oversight. NCSG wishes to remind >ICANN that it has been charged with convening a process, not with >controlling it. The transition will not work unless ICANN runs a truly >open and deliberative process that allows the all ideas to be considered >and the best ideas to win. > >NCSG is the voice of civil society and nonprofit organizations in ICANN's >domain name policy making organ, the Generic Names Supporting >Organization. It is composed of two constituencies, the Noncommercial >Users Constituency (<http://ncuc.org>http://ncuc.org) and the Non-Profit >Operational Constituencies (<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.npoc.org) > >----------end of statement------- > > > > > >-- > ><http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org>http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org