[governance] European Commission 'welcomes improvements in new IANA contract'

[John Curran]

On Nov 15, 2011, at 8:11 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote:

> The development of this "safeguards" looks to me as a way for the USG to make sure ICANN will stop misbehaving, by eventually pulling all responsibility for the root zone management away from ICANN.

In February 2011, NTIA held an Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding the IANA 
Function Contract, and received feedback in the form of many submitted 
comments. They then held a Further Notice of Inquiry (FNOI) in June 2011, 
and included a summary of the input received, their assessment of issues 
raised, and even a proposed draft statement of work as a result.

The safeguard of requiring documentation showing how new TLD has reached
consensus and is in global lobal public interest appears to be a direct 
outcome of that process:

     " NTIA also supports commenters’ views that it is critical that the introduction of individual new gTLDs reflects community consensus among relevant stakeholders and is in the global public interest. As such, the Draft SOW includes, in paragraph C.2.2.1.3.2, a requirement that delegation requests for new gTLDs include documentation demonstrating how the string proposed reflects consensus among relevant stakeholders and is supportive of the global public interest. "

That same NTIA FNOI furthermore asked for feedback on this provision:
 
     "  Does the new ‘‘Provision C.2.2.1.3.2 Responsibility and Respect for Stakeholders’’ adequately address concerns related to the root zone management process in particular how the IANA functions contractor should document its decision making with respect to relevant national laws of the jurisdiction which the TLD registry serves, how the TLD reflects community consensus among relevant stakeholders and/or is supported by the global public interest. If not, please provide detailed suggestions for capturing concerns. Are the timeframes for implementation reasonable? "

I have no idea whether the provision is a good one or not, and did
not individually (or as part of ARIN or the NRO) submit comments on
this provision.  I see several organizations in their comments did
believe that this provision was important, and said as much.  In any
case, the appearance of this provision looks perfectly rational and 
consequential of the feedback that was provided to NTIA in the notice
of inquiry process.  It would have been relatively easy for a few 
organizations to comment against such a provision, but that did not 
happen and hence it does appear in the final statement of work.

I.E. Development of this safeguard looks to me to be NTIA doing 
exactly what it was told to do by the community.

FYI,
/John


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t