[NCUC-DISCUSS] Berkman Center to review the proposal to NTIA

[Mueller, Milton L]

Wolfgang
You are accepting the need for a study at all. 
That seems to me to be a complete breach of process. 

The NTIA said "come up with a plan that meets our criteria" and some of the best minds in the industry, academia, technical community and govt came up with a plan that the believe meets the criteria and everyone could more or less agree on. Now some glorified consultant gets to come along and tell us whether it meets muster? 

Ick.

Every time I get ready to praise Strickling and his staff something like this comes along. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ncuc-discuss [mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf
> Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2016 2:19 PM
> To: sana.ali2030 at gmail.com; William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
> Cc: NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Berkman Center to review the proposal to NTIA
> 
> The problem is that the next step in the long process of the IANA Transition is
> in the hand of the USG only. It is the USG which runs the contract. And it is the
> USG which has to decide whether ot whether not to renew the contract on
> September 30, 2016. It has to review the "Marrakesh Consensus" in the light
> of the March 2014 criteria. The global multistakeholder community has said
> what it had to say in the hundreds of pages of the proposal. I would be
> sceptical that the US government would listen to a study from the LSE, Aarhus
> University or the HIIG, just to name three European academic institutions
> whether the proposal meets those March 2014 criteria or not. Does
> somebody belief that a review of the Marrakesh Consensus by academic
> centers from Istanbul, Hongkong or Moscow would help the USG to make its
> final decision.
> 
> Nevertheless, all those academic institutions around the world are free to
> review, evaluate and discuss the "Marrakesh Consensus". This would
> contribute to more global public awareness about the strength of the
> multistakeholder model. And this would also produce interesting material
> helpful for Workstream 2 (and workstream 3). I hope that we will see a lot of
> PHD dissertations on Marrakesh and the IANA Transition.
> 
> But the reality here and now is that the next concrete step in the nearly 20
> years of the IANA transition is an internal US affair. There is (fortunately) no
> need that the Marrakesh Consensus needs ratification by national
> parliaments. The Marrakesh Consensus is (fortunately) neither the "Climate
> Treaty" nor the "International Convention on the Law of the Sea". It is a
> consensus by an empowered multistakeholder ICANN community.
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
> 
> Bill,
> 
> I think that phrasing is reason enough to take issue, regardless of how capable
> Harvard is to carry out the review.
> 
> Sana
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> > On Mar 19, 2016, at 11:46 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Stephanie
> >
> > I don't know if I'd go as far as to say this 'ruins' it; Berkman's done multiple
> reviews for ICANN over the years and they have a lot of people etc. they can
> put on the case, and in any event their input is just that.  But like Avri I did find
> the 'the only capable source' framing to be a bit much.I'd guess that's how
> NIST sells contracts for local consumption.
> >
> > Who would you have advised NTIA to have gone with instead?
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >> On Mar 19, 2016, at 16:35, Stephanie Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> Wow.  What BS.  What are the Europeans going to say about this? (let
> >> alone the Chinese.....) How could you take all that work done over the past
> year by a multi-stakeholder organization and ruin it by sole-sourcing to
> Harvard?
> >> Steph
> >>
> >>> On 2016-03-19 10:36, avri doria wrote:
> >>> fascinating.
> >>>
> >>>> the only capable source that can provide an independent review and
> >>>> assessment of a non-profit corporate governance structure designed
> >>>> for a multistakeholder setting
> >>>
> >>> On 19-Mar-16 10:07, William Drake wrote:
> >>>> May be of interest to some.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=bfc9cbacbbeb27
> >>>> a0ff16b3bef68c8657&tab=core&_cview=1
> >>>>
> >>>> Bill
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> *************************************************************
> >>>> William J. Drake
> >>>> International Fellow & Lecturer
> >>>>  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ  University of Zurich,
> >>>> Switzerland william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>
> >>>> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
> >>>> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org> /The Working
> >>>> Group on Internet Governance - 10th Anniversary Reflections/ New
> >>>> book at http://amzn.to/22hWZxC
> >>>>
> *************************************************************
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss