<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><big><small>Carlos, <br>
<br>
Thanks for your comment and flagging the issues of an outside
international oversight body, the ombudsmans (ombudspersons?)
office, and the possibility of another office within ICANN to
address “these strategic challenges”. Here are some quick
comments from the small to the big in terms of challenges
here. <br>
<br>
In terms of the choice between the ombudsman and some other
new ICANN office, my personal view is to prefer the ombudsman,
and not just because it would be less expensive in a time of
serious ICANN budget constraints (another challenge). I find
it hard to envision a new ICANN office dealing with DNS
strategic challenges where that office would not become a
lightening rod for a wide variety of external forces
interested in issues that would amount to pressure for ICANN
scope creep. As well, administrative theory and evidence
suggests that a new office, in and of itself, would risk scope
creep within its own work agenda, to bolster its existence,
especially in times of constrained budgets. <br>
<br>
As for an international (outside) oversight body, for me the
core issues are: (a) what principles are to be upheld; (b)
keeping clear what should be inside the ICANN DNS system
remit; and (c) what within the DNS system should be addressed
elsewhere. The primary role of an oversight body is to hold an
entity accountable to its remit. How does that get defined in
a way that an oversight body: (i) doesn’t foster scope creep
by asking ICANN to be accountable for the wrong things, and
(ii) helps re-direct DNS concerns (especially content and
intellectual property issues) to other appropriate venues? <br>
<br>
Sam L.<br>
</small><i><small><br>
On 05/05/2015 11:35 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:<br>
</small></i></big></div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5548E32B.5090404@cafonso.ca" type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><big><i><small>Dear Sam,
Powerful message indeed. ICANN needs an outside international oversight
body which would, among other tasks, decidedly help in tackling these
strategic challenges.
But we (NCSG?) seem to agree on this oversight being reduced to an
office within ICANN. What would be the real difference between this
office and the ombudsman? My answer: the ombudsman is much cheaper.
fraternal regards
--c.a.</small></i></big></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>