Public Comments on IANA proposal

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

The original positions in the CWG ranged from maintaining the status quo
to a completely free standng IANA model.  The supporters of both of
these options have strong reasons and resolve.  We were making no
progress on finding agreement.

A hybrid position was offered after the Singapore meeting,  proposing a
shared service held by the 3 operational communities: names, number and
protocols. This offered both legal separation but joint affiliation with
the various operational communities.  That could not be accepted becasue
the other communities did not want to take on the extra repsonsiblity
and objected strongly to the Naming commmunity coming up with a solution
that presupposed their participation.  So we ended up coming down to a
single member affiliate.  Those who supported the full free standing
IANA proposal, mostly, accepted that having legal separation was a
minimum, but could be acceptable as a first step, with other steps
possible in the future if necessary. 

Since IANA would be subsidiary to ICANN we are therefore also including
in the model, probably in a fundamental bylaw,  a process by which
further separation could be achieved if necessary.  This is described in
the proposal.  Briefly, the IANA Function Review (IFR) Team (IFRT) could
recommend that there was a problem with the then current arrangement and
recommend that further separation discussions be initiated.  The current
proposal is still open on whether at that point:

- a Cross Community WG, similar to the CWG-IANA or to the ICG  (IANA
stewardship transition Coordination Group), would be established to work
on that issue with the option of creating a RFP (request for proposal)
and possibly finding a new IANA function operator. 

- the IFR team itself could then begin the work on a RFP and finding a
new IANA Function Operator.

The CWG is looking for community opinion on these alternatives, so if
NCSG has a recommendation, it would be a good thing to offer in our
comments.

In terms of the degree of control that ICANN has of the affiliate, we
are still discussing the degree to which the affiliate will be subject
to ICANN mangement and working for as much independent action as
possible.  The contract between ICANN and its affiliate would define the
relationship as well as the requirements on each side.  The Post
Transtion IANA (PTI) would have its own largely independent Board. 

Devils and details still abound.

avri
(NCSG member on the CWG-IANA)

On 23-Apr-15 11:27, David Post wrote:
> Milton/All
>
> I'm sure this was talked about at length during the development of the
> proposal, but it does seem rather odd to me that "functional and legal
> separation" between the IANA naming functions and ICANN (which I agree
> is an important principle) has been implemented in this proposal by
> means of setting up a new corporation that is a wholly-owned
> subsidiary of ICANN's (with an ICANN-designated Board - sec
> III.A.i.b).  Can you say a few words as to why you think that provides
> for the necessary independence?  The PTI Board will be answerable to
> the ICANN Board, because ICANN is the only "member" of PTI - ??
>
> David
>
>
> The At 10:58 AM 4/23/2015, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> Dear NCSG-ers:
>>  
>> The domain names part of the IANA transition is finally being formed.
>> A draft proposal was released yesterday and it is open for public
>> comment.
>>  
>> In my view, this is a big win for accountability. By legally
>> separating the IANA functions operator from ICANN, it will be easier
>> to hold ICANN’s board and staff accountable for the policy making
>> process, and easier to hold the post-transition IANA accountable for
>> its performance of the IANA functions. Lines of responsibility will
>> be more direct, and policy more clearly separated from implementation. 
>>  
>> The proposal also promotes accountability by creating a periodic
>> review process that could allow the names community to “fire” the
>> existing IANA if there was great dissatisfaction with its
>> performance. This enhances the accountability sought by the numbers
>> and protocols communities as well as creating separability for the
>> names community for the first time.
>>  
>> The legal affiliate structure seems to have found the middle ground
>> in the debate over ICANN’s role in the IANA functions. Although IANA
>> will still be a subsidiary of ICANN, Inc., thus defusing any concerns
>> about creating new organizations, it will have a separate board and a
>> clearer line of demarcation between the politics of ICANN the policy
>> maker and the technical coordination functions provided by the IANA
>> functions operator.
>>  
>> You can read the (very long) proposal here:
>>  
>> https ://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en
>> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en>
>>  
>> You can comment on it here:
>> * 
>> *
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en
>>
>>  
>>  
>
> *******************************
> David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
> Foundation
> blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post>book (Jefferson's
> Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n    
> <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0>
> music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic
> <http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic> publications etc. 
> http://www.davidpost.com      
> <http://www.davidpost.com%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0/>
> ******************************* 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150424/4a42ec03/attachment.htm>