Hats off to Larry...

Surprising that was one of the most succinct explanations of the "why" for the IANA transitions I've heard. That speech could be a starting point for people trying to understand the IANA transition.

regards

Karel

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Michael Oghia <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Seun,

To clarify, that is definitely not what I meant. I was simply thinking out loud. On the contrary, I think by excluding governments it undermines the MS process since, indeed, governments are stakeholders too.

As far as the other two points, James already clarified as well.

Best,

-Michael

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Seun Ojedeji <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Michael Oghia <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Ayden,

You raise good points. At first thought, the simplest way to answer that is by stressing how the NTIA is still involved in the policy judgments via the GAC as well as by contributing to the PDP when appropriate even if it is not overseeing it.

NTIA (representing USA) is a member of GAC and GAC is part of the community, thats the reason why they participate in Policy, and their influence on PDP will be as far as GAC agrees, as far as the rest of the ICANN community agree with GAC and as far board agrees. However, that function.....

Simply by being present and actively following the proceedings may suffice as oversight.

....should not be mistaken with their stewardship role as they are 2 different things. When stewardship is gone, their role in GAC continues.
 

Yet another idea is that by constantly being present, even if NTIA officials are silent or in the background, it serves as a reminder to other governments or to the community at large -- a soft power of sorts.

I hope you are not suggesting that governments should not participate or share their view on ICANN policy, as i think that will be a bad idea; governments are part of the MS community and the PDP is based on contributions from the MS community. We should be accommodating if we really want to put the MS into real practice.

Regards

Then again, I could be wrong. Thoughts?

Best,

-Michael

__________________

Michael J. Oghia
Istanbul, Turkey

Journalist & editor

2015 ISOC IGF Ambassador

Skype: mikeoghia

Twitter | LinkedIn

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Thanks for sharing this, James.  I'm a little surprised that Strickling would note on the record, even if true, that “we don’t provide any oversight of the policy judgments that ICANN and the multistakeholder community make”. If I was on the Senate Committee, I might wonder just what the NTIA had been doing and why they were traveling around the world on the taxpayers' dime if they have no sway?  That being said, Strickling did offer a brilliant and succinct explanation of why the transition not proceeding would harm Internet freedom. Good to be reminded of why the transition matters.  Ayden On Thu, May 26, 2016 8:23 AM, William Drake [log in to unmask] wrote: A memorable performance On May 26, 2016, at 09:05, James Gannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Just came across this again this morning, a poignant reminder of why we are all here and what we have been working for over the past 2 years. And why we shouldn’t stumble at the finish line. In defence of the IANA Stewardship Transition… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIrs8n5Q7Yo -James

--

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email: [log in to unmask]

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!