Ominous update on the IANA transition

[Seun Ojedeji]

I tend to agree with Sam on this one, especially the pondering questions
raised in relation to international oversight.

Cheers!
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 5 May 2015 17:15, "Sam Lanfranco" <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

>  Carlos,
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> Sam L.
>
>
> * On 05/05/2015 11:35 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: *
>
> *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.*
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150505/50572e4a/attachment.htm>