wonderful that the ccNSO saw through all ICANN's & NTIA's tricks and smashed them so adroitly http://t.co/HWXczZEXzd
— Milton Mueller (@miltonmueller) May 4, 2014
ccNSO interim comments are here (pdf), excerpt:
".... it is the view of the ccNSO Council that any transition of responsibility for the IANA Functions must establish the processes and procedures through which operational requirements for the root zone management functions will be developed, processes and procedures through which the IANA functions operator will be chosen, as well as processes and procedures by which the IANA functions operator will be accountable to the stakeholder community with respect to such requirements. ... ICANN has consistently failed to acknowledge that TLD registries – both country code TLDs and generic TLDs – are as much “affected parties” as are the IETF, the IAB, ISOC, and NRO....Accordingly, we call on ICANN to expand the proposed steering group to include two representatives selected by the ccTLD community and two representatives selected by the Registry Stakeholder Group as “affected parties...Because ICANN is directly interested in the outcome of the multi-stakeholder process being launched, SO and AC participants on the steering committee should be selected by the communities they represent, not by the chairs of the ICANN Board and GAC. The approach proposed in the ICANN Draft is “top-down” and also has the appearance of being self-serving...this process must take into account and provide a replacement for the role that NTIA has played in overseeing ICANN’s obligation to develop and implement consensus policies through a bottom up multistakeholder process, and to be accountable to all stakeholders for the outcome of its decision-making. The ccNSO was not alone in expressing concern about ICANN’s apparent insistence on separating these issues. To the extent that ICANN continues to insist on maintaining separate tracks to address each of these issues, it must ensure that the two tracks come together in advance of the transition itself. Moreover, ICANN should not prejudge or attempt to manipulate the outcome by conflating the issues of globalization and accountability, nor should it assume an “affirmation of commitments” approach to accountability. We understand that in the near future ICANN will issue a draft proposal to address broader accountability issues, and we look forward to reviewing and commenting on that document as well. (emphasis added)
In other words, ccNSO is telling ICANN (and NTIA), stop the BS, we will not allow you to hijack the IANA transition process in your typical top-down manner, and ICANN accountability needs to be addressed by the multi-stakeholder community.
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
