[Area 4] Business Constituency Stress Test #1

[Malcolm Hutty]

Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> Would you be so kind as to convey the Business Constituency's
> assigned probability for:
> 
> 1. termination of the AoC between the USG and the incumbent
> contractor, by the USG, while leaving the IANA Functions contract
> otherwise unchanged?
> 
> 2. termination of the AoC between the USG and the Corporation, by the
> Corporation, while retaining the IANA Functions contract otherwise
> unchanged?



On 12/01/2015 01:59, Steve DelBianco wrote:
> Eric — there is no need to assign probabilities for contingencies or
> for consequences.  I refer you to the charter for our CCWG 
> <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter>,
> regarding scenarios:

That's fair enough, but in this case I think Eric's question prompts a
useful thought.

The explicitly announced intention of the NTIA is to transition the
USG's historic role in stewardship of the DNS to the community. At the
same time, the clear expectation of many governments and others is that
transition should bring about a situation where the US no longer has a
privileged relationship with ICANN, and especially no special ability to
set requirements and enforce them.

The AoC is part of the NTIA's historic stewardship role. I am sure that
many people will also regard it as an example of the privileged
relationship USG has that they wish to see ended. Not necessarily
because they disagree with its content, but because they object to its form.

So I would regard it as entirely plausible and, sooner or later, quite
likely that either ICANN or the USG might terminate the AoC. More
likely, both together will do so by agreement. The reason for
terminating would be that it is a mechanism that belonged to the era of
USG stewardship.

Accordingly, insofar as the AoC contains items relevant to
accountability, it is the responsibility of this CCWG to identify them
and propose how they may be continued or replaced in a post-NTIA world.
Listing this as a "contingency" is, to my mind, just a convenient way of
ensuring it is on our agenda.


The thought that Eric's question prompts is that maybe this discloses a
flaw in our criteria for the WS1/WS2 distinction.

WS1 is for items that must be dealt with (implemented, or firmly
committed) prior to or as part of transition.
We have been assuming that this just means those things which are
necessarily to give assurance that the rest of the improvements can be
implemented later.

When we consider the AoC requirements relevant to accountability (and
also requirements of the IANA functions contract that are relevant to
ICANN accountability beyond IANA) it is immediately apparent that it is
an error to assume we need only consider improvements. There are
existing mechanisms for accountability as well.

Surely, it should be a precondition for transition to ensure that
existing accountability functions are continued without interruption?
Surely, it is not sufficient that we merely have in place a mechanism to
re-institute them later?

If this is so, then the criteria for WS1 ought to accomodate that. I
shall therefore also forward this message to Area 2.

Kind Regards,

Malcolm.

-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
           21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA