[CWG-RFP3] Option 5 - New IANA Entity

Tue Nov 11 00:10:58 UTC 2014

I think it would be great to hear from ccTLD representatives on this.  It has been no secret for most of ICANN’s existence that many if not most ccTLD managers thought that the main service ICANN performs for ccTLDs is the IANA functions.

Chuck

From: cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 6:55 PM
To: Donna Austin
Cc: RFP3
Subject: Re: [CWG-RFP3] Option 5 - New IANA Entity

Donna,

Could I ask you to please expand upon your statement that (if the group performing the IANA functions were moved to a new entity), ICANN "would no longer be responsible for ensuring a single interoperable Internet"?

If "IANA Inc." is in a wholly-owned subsidiary of ICANN, and functions essentially in the same manner as it does today (same people, same offices, etc.), would the statements in your email still be true?  Or are your statements limited to the scenario where "IANA Inc." is a truly independent entity, with no relationship to ICANN?

Is performing the IANA functions the only way in which ICANN ensures that there is a single interoperable internet?

How does being the entity that performs the IANA functions make ICANN responsible for ensuring that there is a single interoperable internet?

What does ICANN lose if it no longer is responsible for performing the IANA functions?

Finally, why is performing the IANA functions the sine qua non for relevance in the eyes of the ccTLD operators?

Thank you for helping me (and others) better understand your thoughts in this area.

Greg

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Donna Austin <Donna.Austin at ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin at ariservices.com>> wrote:
Guru

I think there’s a much bigger issue that would be a consequence of the IANA Functions being transferred to a new entity.

ICANN becomes a policy body and regulator of registry/registrar contracts and would no longer be responsible for ensuring a single interoperable Internet.

I expect that if this was the case, ICANN would no longer have any relevance for ccTLD operators.

Thanks,

Donna

[Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]DONNA AUSTIN
Policy and Industry Affairs Manager

ARI REGISTRY SERVICES
Melbourne | Los Angeles
P  +1 310 890 9655<tel:%2B1%20310%20890%209655>
P  +61 3 9866 3710<tel:%2B61%203%209866%203710>
E  donna.austin at ariservices.com<mailto:donna.austin at ariservices.com>
W  www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/>

Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices>

The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.

From: cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya
Sent: Monday, 3 November 2014 11:54 PM
To: RFP3
Subject: [CWG-RFP3] Option 5 - New IANA Entity

I was hoping this thread could be used to discuss the pros and cons of Option 5.

A diagrammatic representation of Option 5 is in the attached PDF.

In Option 5, a new IANA entity is created and the IANA functions are transferred from ICANN to this new entity. ICANN now only comprises of the names community (GNSO&CCNSO&etc). The oversight council would be a internal committee of ICANN. There is then a SLA/MOU/AOC between the new IANA entity and ICANN.

Avri captured the essence of Option 5 when she said "Well if the GNSO and ccNSO can't leave ICANN, maybe the IANA could leave if necessary.  Wasn't that always the point of the NTIA being able to transfer the contract?  So if we want to keep things similar, we need to maintain the ability for the contract to move from ICANN to another organization, or perhaps to a standalone organization.  We need 'separability' of the IANA function to remain one of its attributes."

As phased implementation, maybe the new IANA entity can initially be a subsidiary (wholly/partially owned) of ICANN. It can later be transferred to a new independent entity if the the names community so decides.

I believe our mandate in the RFP doesn't require us to worry about how the new IANA entity for the names community will interface with the IANA of the protocols and numbers communities. That would be the responsibility and headache of the ICG.

Pros and Cons (please add more):

Pros:
1) Separability is maintained. IANA can be transferred to a new entity in the future in case of dissatisfaction with the incumbent IANA operator.

2) Transparency between IANA and the names community is increased as all communications will need to be documented.

3) No new legal entity for the oversight council needs to be created.

4) The CWG is anyway contemplating creating a ICANN subsidiary for IANA functions to introduce separability and increase transparency.

Cons:
1) Jurisdiction of the new IANA entity will need to be decided.

2) Funding of the new IANA entity will need to be decided.

This thread is just to initiate a discussion.

_______________________________________________
Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org<mailto:Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141111/e027e8eb/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3765 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141111/e027e8eb/image001-0001.png>