[CWG-RFP3] Policy authority

[Alan Greenberg]

Malcolm,

NTIA does a lot of things, and in the past, one of those was bless 
ICANN's roles as the gTLD policy body. It is less clear that with the 
AoC, that is still the case, but regardless, THAT decision, if it is 
still an NTIA responsibility, is not in our charter to resolve (as 
far as I can see).

Alan




At 18/11/2014 06:35 PM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
>On 18/11/2014 17:11, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> > The project at hand is the transition of IANA away from the NTIA.
>
>Alan - and I hope this will serve as a reply to Seun as well,
>
>I have to disagree with the assertion above. IANA is not changing (not
>unless we change it, anyway); NTIA is.
>
>I believe "the project at hand" is the transition of the NTIA away from
>its special historic role in stewardship of the DNS. Accordingly, I
>believe that our main tasks should be to identify what the NTIA used to
>do, what the implications of it no longer doing that would be, and what
>needs to be put in place to ready us for a "post-NTIA world".
>
>When we examine this, we can clearly see that the role of the NTIA
>includes operational supervision of the IANA functions, but is not
>limited to this. It also includes the choice of ICANN as the IANA
>functions operator. It also includes the appointment of ICANN as the
>policy authority for gTLDs in paragraph C.2.9.2d.
>
>It also includes, I would argue, requirements that NTIA places on ICANN
>in the IANA functions contract the scope of which cover ICANN as a
>policy body as well as ICANN as the IANA functions operator. Indeed, I
>would characterise those as being pre-conditions for ICANN's appointment
>as the policy authority. I would point to the criteria NTIA set out in
>the transition announcement of March 14th as evidence that NTIA
>*requires* that these requirements be enforced against ICANN
>post-transition.
>
> > NTIA has communicated to ICANN that the transition proposal must 
> have broad community support and address the following four principles:
> >
> > * Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
> > * Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
> > * Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and 
> partners of the IANA services; and,
> > * Maintain the openness of the Internet.
>
>I know that in raising this delicate issue it is easy to mistake where I
>am coming from, so let me be clear. I believe that ICANN should continue
>to be the policy authority for gTLDs. I believe that the circumstances
>under which ICANN could be stripped of such authority should be limited
>to the extreme, and narrowly defined. In short, I am very much in the
>camp that wants to see ICANN continue in its current mission, a role and
>mission I have supported and defended for ten years.
>
>But I do not believe this unconditionally.
>
>I think our task is - or ought to be - to identify the core conditions
>on which ICANN's legitimacy as the policy authority for gTLDs should
>rest, and an effective mechanism for enforcing those conditions in
>extremis. And I happen to think that we should look to the NTIA's four
>conditions cited above as our starting point and foundation.
>
>To suggest that ICANN's status as the gTLD policy authority should be
>limited by conditionality should not, in my view, be terribly
>surprising. That status is conditional right now: the NTIA's decision in
>(was it 2012?) to reject ICANN's bid for the IANA Functions Contract and
>re-issue the RFP clearly demonstrates that conditionality be applied in
>very practical terms. That decision to re-issue the RFP led to the
>Affirmation of Commitments, which clearly speaks to ICANN, not just to
>IANA functions.
>
>That said, if you believe that now is the time to make ICANN's gTLD
>policy authority unconditional you are fully entitled to argue that.
>I don't think, however, that it is reasonable to claim that taking the
>opposite position is not just wrong, but out-of-scope.
>
>As an aside, let me tell you how much I wish raising this didn't risk
>associating me in your mind with those who have never wanted ICANN, and
>who still hanker over transferring its policy authority to an
>intergovernmental body. Please be assured, that is the opposite of what
>I want. But I am conscious that the detrimental consequences of such a
>transfer could also be achieved by suborning ICANN, and I believe that
>as we lose the ultimate protection of the NTIA, the community needs to
>put in place the necessary measures to avoid such unhappy consequences.
>
>The official position of the NTIA, as expressed in the transition
>announcement of March 14th, appears to share this view.
>
>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