2014-07-18

IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group meeting, my comments

My "chat comments" (and related chat comments) from the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) [a/k/a IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group] First Meeting in London this past week:

From the July 17, 2014 transcript:

John Poole: Every user of the internet is affected by IANA -- why are they limiting this to certain "communities?"

John Poole: IANA transition should not be dependent upon ICANN accountability -- ICANN may never be accountable and others have proposals to reform or replace ICANN. If you make the IANA process
dependent on the outcome of the ICANN accountability process--moving away from US government oversight may take years, if ever

John Poole: wrong to say "presumably IANA becomes part of ICANN" when proposals have already been made to separate IANA from ICANN

Keith Drazek, gTLD Registries [ICG member]: @JohnPoole, yes, I shouldn't have used the word "presumably;" I should have said "If one were to assume..." in the context of the current discussion. I was simply trying to illuminate that there are differences between the name/number/protocol strucures today that need to be understood moving forward. Apologies

John Poole: @KeithDrazek - gTLD Registries: thank you for your acknowledgment and correction

John Poole: Good that Milton [Milton Mueller - ICG member] caught the error being "pushed" that tries to "force" ICANN into NTIA role

John Poole: Good to hear at least some CG members are mindful and open to receiving proposals from other than "insider" groups -- wasn't this supposed to be an inclusive process for all including those outside of ICANN?

John Poole: That's a big assumption that everyone in the world can get access into 1 of only 4 [now just 3] groups!

John Poole: It is obvious that there are stakeholders who are not represented on the CG -- just acknowledge that fact and commit to an open and transparent process for everyone

Keith Drazek, gTLD Registries: In the spirit of bottom-up, consensus-based multistakeholderism,
the process must be open and transparent for anyone who wants to contribute. What stakeholders are not already represented or who don't have the opportunity to participate in an exististing strucure?

John Poole: @Keith -- exactly --"Represented" is different from "opportunity to participate"

Mohamed El Bashir [ICG member]: Although At-Large community, which I represent in ICG, is less geographical representative, but being politically sensitive and ensure that acceptance of the future outcomes of our work, I am supporting adding extra 3 GAC members.Participated WICT conference, There is a lots wrong perceptions regarding the ICANN Role/NTIA stewardship role especially in the developing world, GAC can create awareness among governments and ensure regional Internet government organizations ( e.g African Union, Arab League, ..etc ) are involved and are engaged in the process.

John Poole: @Mohamed agree

Bill Drake: I don't want to be in Istanbul listening to governments saying that they were locked out of the process and its outcome will be illegitimate

Bill Drake: and I especially don't want to hear them saying that at the ITU Plenipotentiary

John Poole: @Bill +1

More info on the ICG meeting here.





No comments:

Domain Mondo posts: