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

Sun Mar 20 13:56:38 CET 2016

Hi,

I figure NTIA feels the need for outside institutional cover with
Congress.  Something they can attempt to call objective - and the fact
that they only observe ICANN from afar instead of getting into it with
the rest of us, will be a criteria of objectivity for some.

though I do admit some irritation of having so much money spent on the
elite institution, but that is a personal prejudice as a US taxpayer who
is not very respectful of Berkman outputs - from previous reports I have
seen in the ATRT, I think they generally do more to support their
ideology than they do to review ICANN accountability.  I am also not
convinced they have any clear notions on how a multistakeholder process
works within their ideology.

avri

On 19-Mar-16 15:20, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus