Public Comments on IANA proposal

Sun Apr 26 16:28:58 EEST 2015

At 10:38 AM 4/26/2015, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

>Hi
>
>David wrote:
>" But without independence from the ICANN Board, 
>the possibility that it would ever actually 
>exercise the "option of creating a RFP (request 
>for proposal) and possibly finding a new IANA 
>function operator" (even though its parent 
>corporation and sole Member (i.e. ICANN) 
>doesnotÂ want it to do that) strikes me as 
>pretty slim, and without the ability to do that 
>its not really independent at all.Â Â "
>
>SO:
>In the current configuration, PTI is not in the 
>position to issue RFP, it's rather the parent 
>(ICANN) that is in the position to issue RFP 
>based on the recommendation of IRF team/possible 
>escalation from CSC. The later which is not yet 
>very clear. So PTI is basically entering the 
>current shoes of ICANN and ICANN will be 
>entering the shoes of NTIA post-transition

So nothing, really, in this arrangement serves as 
a constraint on the ICANN Board.  If ICANN 
"misbehaves," PTI won't be able to find a new 
partner (or terminate its contract with ICANN), 
but if PTI misbehaves ICANN will be able to do 
both of those things.  I thought that one of the 
virtues of the "Contract Co." approach was that, 
with truly independent bodies, each would 
function as a constraint on the other, and that 
seems to have gotten lost here; whatever 
constraints there will be on the ICANN Board 
won't come from the IANA functions side but 
through the "accountability" mechanisms, I suppose.

David

>Regards
>sent from Google nexus 4
>kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>On 26 Apr 2015 14:20, "David Post" 
><<mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com>david.g.post at gmail.com> wrote:
>Thanks, Avri, for your response - very helpful. 
>I understand the point that there are LOTS of 
>details still to be filled in, so I suppose I 
>can postpone some of my questions until those are on the table.Â Â Â
>But this arrangement worries me, because in the 
>ordinary sense, a wholly-owned subsidiary is 
>most definitely not independent of its parent - 
>in fact, the very opposite is usually true - and 
>I'm just not aware of a lot of models where 
>something like this actually works to counter 
>that inherent dependence.Â  Maybe there are such 
>things out there and I'm just not aware of them, 
>and maybe the right combination of ICANN and PTI 
>by-law provisions, and contract language, and 
>procedures for selecting the PTI Board can be 
>devised to give the PTI Board real independence, 
>and I just haven't seen them yet.Â  But without 
>independence from the ICANN Board, the 
>possibility that it would ever actually exercise 
>the "option of creating a RFP (request for 
>proposal) and possibly finding a new IANA 
>function operator" (even though its parent 
>corporation and sole Member (i.e. ICANN) does 
>not want it to do that) strikes me as pretty 
>slim, and without the ability to do that its not really independent at all.Â
>David
>
>At 04:51 AM 4/24/2015, Avri Doria wrote:
>>Hi,
>>The original positions in the CWG ranged from 
>>maintaining the status quo to a completely free 
>>standng IANA model.Â  The supporters of both of 
>>these options have strong reasons and 
>>resolve.Â  We were making no progress on finding agreement.
>>A hybrid position was offered after the 
>>Singapore meeting,Â  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.Â  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.Â  So we ended up coming 
>>down to a single member affiliate.Â  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.Â
>>
>>Since IANA would be subsidiary to ICANN we are 
>>therefore also including in the model, probably 
>>in a fundamental bylaw,Â  a process by which 
>>further separation could be achieved if 
>>necessary.Â  This is described in the 
>>proposal.Â  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.Â  The current 
>>proposal is still open on whether at that point:
>>- a Cross Community WG, similar to the CWG-IANA 
>>or to the ICGÂ  (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.Â
>>- 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.Â  The 
>>contract between ICANN and its affiliate would 
>>define the relationship as well as the 
>>requirements on each side.Â  The Post Transtion 
>>IANA (PTI) would have its own largely independent Board.Â
>>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).Â  Can you say a few words as 
>>>to why you think that provides for the 
>>>necessary independence?Â  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:
>>>>Â
>>>>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.
>>>>Â
>>>>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 ICANNâ€™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.Â
>>>>Â
>>>>The proposal also promotes accountability by 
>>>>creating a periodic review process that could 
>>>>allow the names community to â€œfireâ€ 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.
>>>>Â
>>>>The legal affiliate structure seems to have 
>>>>found the middle ground in the debate over 
>>>>ICANNâ€™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.
>>>>Â
>>>>You can read the (very long) proposal here:
>>>>Â
>>>><https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en>https 
>>>>://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en
>>>>Â
>>>>You can comment on it here:
>>>>Â
>>>><https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en>https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en 
>>>>
>>>>Â
>>>>Â
>>>*******************************
>>>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)Â  <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0>http://tinyurl.com/c327w2nÂ
>>>music 
>>><http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic>http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic 
>>>publications etc.Â  http://www.davidpost.comÂ Â Â
>>>*******************************
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----------
>><http://www.avast.com/>
>>Avast logo
>><http://www.avast.com/> <http://www.avast.com/>Â
>>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>><http://www.avast.com/>www.avast.com
>*******************************
>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)Â 
><http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0>http://tinyurl.com/c327w2nÂ Â Â Â
>music 
><http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic>http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic 
>publications etc.Â  http://www.davidpost.comÂ Â Â Â Â Â
>*******************************

*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic 
publications etc.  http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150426/9d31d71b/attachment.htm>