My answers to the CWG-IANA questions

Wed Feb 25 13:00:03 EET 2015

Hi all

Just following up on the call for NSCG policy committee member inputs –
thanks Avri for starting the online document. 

And thanks Milton for yours as well – I agree with most and have some
additional material – so I’ve added yours (Milton) to the online document as
well as some substantive comments (on Qns 4, 6, 7 and 8) and made some
suggestions for dealing with the alternative views of NSCG members in
relation to Q 9 – you will see it in the same document:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U72dVBIuwU3eq8K1e3DWstXNZLOCpcB4YFvKmqHC
HQ0/edit?pli=1#

I’m happy to assist in making any final changes and to ensure this is lodged
on time as well – or if someone else wishes to, that is ok with me 

Joy

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
Balleste, Roy
Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2015 6:56 a.m.
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: My answers to the CWG-IANA questions

+1 on Milton’s draft.

Roy Balleste

Director, Summer in Spain Program

Law Library Director &

Professor of Law

St. Thomas University Law Library

16401 NW 37th Avenue

Miami Gardens, FL 33054

305-623-2341

http://royballeste.org/

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
Stephanie Perrin
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:32 PM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] My answers to the CWG-IANA questions

+1 looks good to me too, although I could quibble about the answer to
#4....that is not what it should mean, but you are in a much better position
to determine what it means in the context of these discussions.
Thanks for all the work you folks!
Stephanie Perrin

On 2015-02-23 21:34, Olévié Kouami wrote:

Hi !

Great job Milton !
+1

Cheers !

-Olevie-

2015-02-15 20:01 GMT+00:00 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>:

Hello Norbert, 

Yes, I agree with you and Milton.

Thanks,

Robin

On Feb 10, 2015, at 7:27 PM, Norbert Klein wrote:

Hi Milton and all on the NCSG-DISCUSS list,

I agree with the text from Milton, including the wording as it is. I am open
for clarifying re-wordings, but not with softening the statements.

Norbert Klein
Cambodia

On 02/10/2015 03:15 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

Dear members:

The CWG on IANA transition is going to collecting community feedback on the
IANA transition this week. This exercise is very important because it will
influence the CWG’s development of a proposal.

I have gone through the 9 questions they prepared and answered them, you all
may be interested in my answers. Most of these answers will probably be
uncontroversial on this list, but there may be some room for debate so  I
would like to get your feedback on my proposed answers

1.      Do you believe that the transition from the NTIA should happen
(Please provide the reasons for your answer)? 

Yes. Unilateral US government control of the IANA functions contract is not
compatible with the multistakeholder model

2.      Are you comfortable with ICANN as policy-maker also being the IANA
operator without the benefit of external oversight? 

No. 

3.      Should registries, as the primary customers of the IANA functions,
have more of a say as to which transition proposal is acceptable? 

The NTIA has made it clear that all major stakeholder groups, including
registries, need to accept the transition proposal. Registries should have
an influential role in any oversight mechanisms of the naming-related IANA
functions, but need not have a privileged role in the selection of
proposals. 

4.      What does functional separation of IANA from ICANN mean to you?
(this is not referring to having another operator than ICANN performing the
IANA functions but rather the internal separation between ICANN and IANA in
the context where ICANN is the IANA operator) 

Functional separation means that IANA is a department of ICANN under the
same management as the rest of ICANN and without a clearly separated budget
or mission. 

5.      Do you believe the IANA function is adequately separated from ICANN
under the current arrangements (internal separation)? 

No. 

6.      In considering the key factors (such as security and stability, ease
of separating the IANA function from ICANN, quality of services,
accountability mechanisms etc.) for evaluating the various transition
proposals what importance would you give to the ability to separate IANA
from ICANN (separability) vs. the other factors? 

Very high importance, because separability will have major beneficial
effects on all the other factors, such as accountability, quality of
service, security and stability. Separability increases the leverage of the
customers of IANA over performance, security and stability.

7.            Given the IANA functions could be separated from ICANN do you
believe it would be important for the community to obtain from ICANN on an
annual basis the costs for operating IANA including overhead costs?

Yes, very important.

o Would it be important to separate out the costs associated with address
and protocol functions? 

Less so than the IANA department as a whole

8.            Could there be unforeseen impacts relative to selecting a new
operator for the IANA functions vs the ICANN policy role (should ICANN
determine that there will be another round of new gTLDs, how could it ensure
that the new operator would accept this)?

No, a new operator could be contractually bound to accept changes from ICANN
that were the product of legitimate policy making processes. 

9.            Are there other transition models which the CWG should be
exploring? 

Yes, the new structural separation model proposed by Brenden Kuerbis, Matt
Shears, and Avri Doria

Milton L Mueller

Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor

Syracuse University School of Information Studies

http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/

Internet Governance Project

http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/> 

-- 

Olévié Ayaovi Agbenyo KOUAMI

Responsable du Projet CERGI Education

Directeur-Adjoint de KT Technologies Informatiques sarl

SG de ESTETIC  - Association Togolaise des professionnels des TIC
(http://www.estetic.tg)

ICANN-NPOC Communications Committee Chair (http://www.icann.org/ et
http://www.npoc.org/)
Membre du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net) et Membre de de Internet Society
(www.isoc.org) 

BP : 851 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 98 43 27 72 
Skype : olevie1 FB : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé – Togo

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150225/fa282d0f/attachment.htm>