[CWG-RFP3] Option 5 - New IANA Entity

Tue Nov 11 15:49:29 UTC 2014

Donna, I think you're very spot on here! That's how I have always read the
NTIA's announcement.

Regards,
Vika

From:  Donna Austin <Donna.Austin at ariservices.com>
Date:  Tuesday 11 November 2014 4:41 PM
To:  James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>, Greg Shatan
<gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Cc:  RFP3 <cwg-rfp3 at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [CWG-RFP3] Option 5 - New IANA Entity

All

I have some concerns that we¹re potentially over-reaching here in terms of
what we¹ve been asked to do.

I don¹t believe the NTIA is going to accept a proposal which calls for a
separate IANA entity. In my mind, the NTIA announcement was evidence that
they are happy with the current arrangement and how ICANN manages the IANA
function  what they have asked the multi-stakeholder community to do is
develop a mechanism that replaces the NTIA role in the process, not ICANN¹s.

Thanks,

Donna

DONNA AUSTIN
Policy and Industry Affairs Manager

ARI REGISTRY SERVICES
Melbourne|Los Angeles
P +1 310 890 9655
P +61 3 9866 3710
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: James Gannon [mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net]
Sent: Tuesday, 11 November 2014 4:23 AM
To: Donna Austin; Greg Shatan
Cc: RFP3
Subject: RE: [CWG-RFP3] Option 5 - New IANA Entity

Do we really need to be considering what the future ICANN does, if we are
concerned with the stable future of the names process, specifically the IANA
functions?
ICANN can define its own business model if it needs to change due to any
activities arising out of the transition.
I¹m just not sure where understanding a future ICANN comes into
consideration at this stage. If a future independent IANA function decides
to continue its relationship with ICANN as the status quo then it will be
the responsibility of the entity to define the terms of that contract.

And I think that the ethos of this transition on a broader scale is that the
responsibility for ensuring a single interoperable internet should be moving
away from a single point (i.e ICANN) to a more distributed role between the
IANA functions, IETF and RIR¹s. (This is the multistakeholder bottom up
part)As the other two parties to this are centered on their MOU¹s they also
have the option to move away from ICANN in the future if they so see the
need to.

>>Is performing the IANA functions the only way in which ICANN ensures that
there is a single interoperable internet?
>>DA: probably not, but if ICANN has no control over the entity that performs
the IANA function then I¹m at a loss as to how ICANN would be accountable and
responsible for coordinating, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s
systems of unique identifiers. (Unless of course ICANN replaced the NTIA as the
organisation that let the RFP for the IANA functions.)

>>How does being the entity that performs the IANA functions make ICANN
responsible for ensuring that there is a single interoperable internet?
>>DA: because of the very nature of what IANA does  it coordinates the unique
identifiers. The RIRs and IETF would have no need for an MOU with ICANN.

>>What does ICANN lose if it no longer is responsible for performing the IANA
functions?
>>DA: I¹m not sure and that¹s what we need to understand. Let me put it another
way: what would ICANN do if the NTIA had not contracted them to perform the IANA
function but some other entity.

From:cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org] On
Behalf Of Donna Austin
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 2:55 AM
To: Greg Shatan
Cc: RFP3
Subject: Re: [CWG-RFP3] Option 5 - New IANA Entity

Greg, All

See my comments below:

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"?
DA: perhaps I overstated, but I do wonder how ICANN could be responsible for
ensuring a single interoperable Internet if they have no control of the
entity that coordinates the unique identifiers.

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?
DA: No, I was referring to the case where there are two separate entities.
If the subsidiary is still linked to ICANN and the reporting and staffing
etc. remains the same then I don¹t see IANA Inc. as you describe it as too
different from what it is today.

Or are your statements limited to the scenario where "IANA Inc." is a truly
independent entity, with no relationship to ICANN?
DA: certainly an IANA Inc. that is truly independent with no relationship to
ICANN is a completely different scenario and would need to be thought
through very carefully. Who would this IANA Inc. be responsible and
accountable to? How would the relationship be connected to ICANN? Would
ccTLD delegations/redelegations still require approval by the Board, and how
would that work? How would funding be provided to support resourcing and
staffing etc. Personally, I think this scenario is simply out-of-scope of
what we should be discussing.

Is performing the IANA functions the only way in which ICANN ensures that
there is a single interoperable internet?
DA: probably not, but if ICANN has no control over the entity that performs
the IANA function then I¹m at a loss as to how ICANN would be accountable
and responsible for coordinating, at the overall level, the global
Internet¹s systems of unique identifiers. (Unless of course ICANN replaced
the NTIA as the organisation that let the RFP for the IANA functions.)

How does being the entity that performs the IANA functions make ICANN
responsible for ensuring that there is a single interoperable internet?
DA: because of the very nature of what IANA does  it coordinates the unique
identifiers. The RIRs and IETF would have no need for an MOU with ICANN.

What does ICANN lose if it no longer is responsible for performing the IANA
functions?
DA: I¹m not sure and that¹s what we need to understand. Let me put it
another way: what would ICANN do if the NTIA had not contracted them to
perform the IANA function but some other entity.

Finally, why is performing the IANA functions the sine qua non for relevance
in the eyes of the ccTLD operators?
DA: I believe Byron Holland has answered this in a separate email.

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

Greg

Thanks,

Donna

DONNA AUSTIN
Policy and Industry Affairs Manager

ARI REGISTRY SERVICES
Melbourne|Los Angeles
P +1 310 890 9655
P +61 3 9866 3710
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: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> ]
Sent: Monday, 10 November 2014 3:55 PM
To: Donna Austin
Cc: Guru Acharya; 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 there¹s 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

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
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3>

_______________________________________________ Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
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/20141111/38a45fd6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3765 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141111/38a45fd6/image001-0001.png>