[ALAC] Important ALAC Survey About IANA Stewardship Transition Naming Issues

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Thu Nov 13 16:04:56 UTC 2014

Dear all,

you will have found that survey in your mailbox. I wanted to point out a
few things:

1. This process is needed in order for our representatives who will be
meeting within the CWG on IANA Naming Issues in Frankfurt next week to
have a coordinated point of view. This is really critical. If we wish to
have any impact in this large group, we really need to have the mandate
to say what we will say in the meeting with a clear view of what our
community of end users really think.
2. The survey is around 10 questions long. Yes, it is a complex topic.
Yes, it might take you 10-15 minutes to complete. But I repeat, this is
really CRITICAL. If you decide not to respond, the world will not end
and neither will the Internet die a horrible death, but our
representatives will not have a clear head that the positions they are
taking reflect the positions of this community. So please make the
effort & spend those 10-15 minutes.
3. Some of this stuff is pretty cryptic and might need further
explanation before you make up your mind. Do not hesitate to ask
questions on the mailing list and my colleagues & I who have been
tracking this closely will make our best attempt to respond and help
explain the issues.
4. There is a 4th Strawman proposal which is not shown in the tables and
that's the option of having no oversight body or committee created.
Instead, as was mentioned in the message below, the proposal suggests a
system of checks and balances with processes in place to enhance
accountability without needing to create any kind of body or committee.
This proposal is still being put together as we speak so we'll need to
consider this separately later. I repeat: if you would prefer the 4th
Strawman proposal, please still respond to the survey on the first 3
Strawman proposals because we need a 2nd choice position of the 4th
Strawman is rejected by the majority of members of the CWG. We cannot
end up in a dead end and pushed on the side by sticking to a single
proposal and should show some degree of flexibility.

In advance, I thank you for your commitment to this high stakes, highly
critical process.

Kind regards,


On 13/11/2014 04:32, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote:
> Dear All,
> Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the IANA Issues Working Group and Vice Chair of the ALAC has asked that a survey be sent to the members of the IANA Issues Working Group, as well as the ALAC working list. You may access the survey at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/C5CNWG9. Kindly see the introduction of the survey below.
> ***
> The CWG on IANA Stewardship Transition Naming Issues (CWG) will have a face-to-face meeting from Wednesday 19 November to Thursday 20 November. Our five ALAC representatives in this working group need to have a coordinated point of view BEFORE that date.
> First, we need to make a decision on two initial over-arching questions related solely to Naming Issues:
> 1. Should the US Government Stewardship oversight of the IANA function be replaced by a new Oversight Body, or should it be replaced by a mechanism for oversight? (Please note that policy development will remain in ICANN; here we are speaking of operational oversight, making sure that the IANA functions are run according to its defined procedures.)
> 2. If the CWG decides to create an Oversight Body, should this body be IN ICANN or INDEPENDENT of ICANN.
> Three proposals for an Oversight Body are on the table for discussion:
> (1) creating this body within ICANN - a committee that would be consist of ICANN community members
> (2) creating this body in a subsidiary of ICANN - a committee housed in a semi-independent organisation that would be a subsidiary of ICANN
> (3) creating this body in an entirely independent and new organisation outside of ICANN
> The three proposals are further detailed in this survey, which divides the proposal into sections based on their individual segments. Please be so kind to read the segments carefully and point out which ones you would favor. Please note that you do not need to favor segments from the same proposal. Also, if you would like to see some combination of segments across the proposals, or have other suggestions, you may elaborate on your idea in the comment sections.
> If you don't support the creation of an Oversight Body for the naming related IANA Functions, please still complete the rest of the survey with the assumption that an Oversight Body would be created. In that way, our representatives on the CWG can have a fall-back position to work with if the CWG decides to go ahead with creating an Oversight Body. Please note that the questions marked with the asterisk sign are mandatory.
> The three proposals are available at: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49361666/StrawmanMatrix.pdf
> If you have any questions prior to answering this survey, do not hesitate to ask them on either alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org or iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org.
> Regards,
> Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew
> ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC
> E-mail: staff at atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org>
> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge>
> Twitter: @ICANN_AtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANN_AtLarge>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

More information about the ALAC mailing list