[CWG-RFP3] Policy authority

Tue Nov 18 10:29:33 UTC 2014

I do not understand the hard distinction that you make between "policy
source" and "policy authority". If NTIA were to change the "policy source"
from ICANN PDD to IWONT PDP in C.2.9.2.d, will it not render the ICANN PDP
pointless and the IWONT PDP authoritative? Effectively does that not change
the Policy Authority from ICANN to IWONT?

Isn't that also the reason why the 500 page ICANN response to the NTIA RFP,
which is incorporated into the IANA Functions Contract by reference,
outlines in detail the PDP that ICANN intends to follow?

In any case, if the CWG chooses to develop a proposal in which it grants
the ICANN PDP perpetual authority as the policy source, *then it should be
clearly stated in the proposal*. This is so that this issue does not escape
the global community's notice when it is put up for comments; and so that
the global community can comment in favour of it or against it in an
informed manner.

If the CWG chooses to allow the Oversight Body to change the Policy
Authority by way of amending the said clause, then the implications of it,
in terms of transition of the policy authority, conflict of interest etc
need to be discussed in further detail and outlined in the proposal.

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Currently NTIA, if it so desires, can take the Policy Authority away from
>> ICANN to another organisation by amending C.2.9.2.d.
>>
>
> Well NTIA by that contract can at moment decide to ask IANA operator to
> refer to any policy source. Same statement as above is also indicated for
> numbers (ref C.2.9.3). However this does not mean that the contract gave
> ICANN the authority to run the names PDP neither did it give the authority
> to the numbers community to run numbers PDP.
>
>>
>> NTIA effectively has stewardship over the IANA Functions Operator and the
>> Policy Authority.
>>
>
> I will agree with the former but not the later. The NTIA recognises the
> policy sources and have instructed the operator to operate based on those
> policy sources.
>
>
>> Unfortunately, the entire debate has been framed as limited to IANA
>> Stewardship to the exclusion of the Policy Authority Stewardship.
>>
>
> And this IMO is correct, NTIA does not control the policy authority but
> only controls the IANA functions operations and so we should indeed focus
> on the IANA functions stewardship authority
>
>>
>> The question then becomes whether in the event of the stewardship
>> transition, should this power of changing the Policy Authority be retained
>> by the Oversight Body that is replacing NTIA?
>>
>> If this is referring to the policy source (not authority) then it can be
> considered.
>
> Or should the Policy Authority be perpetually granted to ICANN?
>>
>
> The current PDP for names is happening at ICANN so ICANN (its entire
> community) already has that authority.
>
> Cheers!
>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Excellent point Malcolm.
>>>>
>>>> However, I agree that the Policy Authority should not be immutable or
>>>> perpetually granted to ICANN.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Honestly Guru i am not sure i understand the point above. Are you saying
>>> that the approval of policies related to names should not be done by ICANN
>>> board OR you are saying there should be another independent oversight for
>>> policy?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Regards!
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Guru
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope I have not come too late to this party to participate. I have
>>>>> carefully read the mail archive before posting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Before I dive in with my suggestions, I have a question regarding
>>>>> Strawman 2 and Strawman 3. Both these strawmen envisage that the IANA
>>>>> Functions Contract would continue, with two different types of new
>>>>> entity as the counter-party to replace NTIA, "PROC" and "PROSI". Both
>>>>> these strawmen entertain the the possibility that someone other than
>>>>> ICANN could be awarded the IANA Functions Contract.
>>>>>
>>>>> My question is this: in the event that the new counter-party (PROC or
>>>>> PROSI) placed the IANA Functions Countract with a new operator, would
>>>>> it
>>>>> be open to the counter-party to direct the IANA operator to a new
>>>>> source
>>>>> of policy authority for gTLDs?
>>>>>
>>>>> The existing policy authority of ICANN derives from paragraph C.2.9.2.d
>>>>> of the IANA Function Contract, which states:
>>>>>
>>>>> * C.2.9.2d      Delegation and Redelegation of a Generic Top Level
>>>>> * Domain (gTLD) -- The Contractor shall verify that all requests
>>>>> * related to the delegation and redelegation of gTLDs are consistent
>>>>> * with the procedures developed by ICANN. In making a delegation or
>>>>> * redelegation recommendation, the Contractor must provide
>>>>> * documentation verifying that ICANN followed its own policy framework
>>>>> * including specific documentation demonstrating how the process
>>>>> * provided the opportunity for input from relevant stakeholders and was
>>>>> * supportive of the global public interest. The Contractor shall submit
>>>>> * its recommendations to the COR via a Delegation and Redelegation
>>>>> * Report.
>>>>>
>>>>> This paragraph appears to be of core importance. As I understand
>>>>> matter,
>>>>> it is this paragraph which gives ICANN policy authority over gTLDs as a
>>>>> practical matter: subjective claims about community support may explain
>>>>> why the NTIA chose to grant ICANN this authority, but that community
>>>>> will was only given effect through this paragraph.
>>>>>
>>>>> So my first question is, do the current strawmen (2 & 3) intend that
>>>>> this provision be a fixed and wholly immutable provision of any future
>>>>> IANA Functions Contract, or could ICANN be replaced by the
>>>>> counter-party
>>>>> (either at-will or in defined circumstances)?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to point out that this is not explicitly clear from the
>>>>> strawmen as drafted, and that is a weakness that should be addressed.
>>>>> My sense is that you intend it to be immutable, and I do consider that
>>>>> problematic, but before diving into why I would like to confirm your
>>>>> intentions (and discover whether there is an existing consensus on this
>>>>> point).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
>>>>> Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
>>> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt
>>> email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>>> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>>>
>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt
> email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141118/22dc91f5/attachment-0001.html>