[CCWG-ACCT] Request for clarification - Ominous update on the IANA transition
Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
Thu Apr 30 22:48:32 UTC 2015
>> as you will have seen on the list, a discussion has started on the article referred to in the e-mail below about the Board’s and ICANN legal’s position with respect to community proposals and relating negotiations.
>> We would like to ask you as Board liaison to clarify the Board’s position and plans with respect to proposals provided by the community. Further, we would like to get clarity on the role ICANN legal plays in this and whether negotiations that were referred to are based on instructions by the Board.
The Board's position hasn't changed on the process.
With respect to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) we made a commitment that we would pass on their final proposals to the NTIA without change. If we have any concerns with those proposal we would communicate those to the NTIA publicly - but only after we have first raised any issues publicly with the community.
With respect to the work of the Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions Draft Transition Proposal, we understand that the 2nd draft is out for public comment: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en The Board will be considering this report, and will submit its comments in the public comment forum as we did after the 1st draft.
With respect to the work of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability . We passed a resolution in Los Angeles setting out how we would be responding: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d. The Board plans to review the report from the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, and will make any of its concerns public through the public comment process.
Under the current arrangements between the IETF and IANA with respect to maintaining the protocol registries this is an annual process of reviewing the SLAs via a Supplemental Agreement. Andrew Sullivan, chair of the IAB, recently posted on this topic on one of the public IETF lists. My understanding is that there are some changes requested by the IETF following he IANA transition discussions that the legal team feel would need approval from NTIA, or were inconsistent with the current agreement with the NTIA. The feeling from staff was that it was best to wait for this to be handled as part of the IANA transition process as a whole, rather than under the existing arrangements. This does not affect any proposed operational improvements that are handled in the annual process. Operational improvements agreed in discussions between the IETF and the IANA function would not normally go through a Board approval process unless there was a material impact to the budget. There have been no instructions from the Board regarding this process. When the Board gives directives to management it is through Board resolutions that are made public.
I am also aware that there have been various discussions between various members of the CANN management and various community leaders on concerns about some of the proposals from the IETF, RIRs, and naming community regarding separability. These concerns have been raised in the context of the fear that the proposals may make it harder to get approval from the US Government. Ideally the NTIA would give some clarity on this matter, but that doesn't seem likely until after all the ICG makes its final report to the NTIA. I think that is partly because NTIA will need to run its own process to get guidance from various parts of Government, and no doubt they will also be hauled before a US Senate hearing of some sort before they can make a decision. The Board will be considering the various proposals and if it has concerns or suggestions for improvement - that will be made through the relevant public comment process. Ultimately though once the community settles on its final proposals, I personally see the Board's role as helping support the proposals in the likely long US Government process to get support.
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community