[CWG-RFP3] Proposed Redline to Strawman 1

[Milton L Mueller]

Kurt

Are we more concerned with: (a) providing excellent IANA services, or (b) finding the best IANA services operator. If one takes a long-term view, the two choices merge into one, but if one takes a short-term view, the two choices are different.

MM: I disagree. There is no such thing as a _permanent_ “best IANA services operator.” Everything changes and evolves. As Chuck and others have noted, a regularized periodic renewal process does not deter investment or undermine stability – but it does keep the contractor on its toes. Whereas an attempt to break away on an irregular, catastrophic basis is extremely unstable and politicized. We need to avoid locking the community in and we need to avoid that kind of instability that would come with permanence.

Contractors perform best and make substantial investments when they have knowledge that the job is essentially theirs. Consider the short-term planning scenario where the IANA contract is regularly put out for bid.

MM: Your scenarios are very simplistic presentations of a complex situation. Both an academic specializing in firm theory and a  professional business manager would probably laugh at them. Yes, more certainty in the contract saves everyone time and effort devoted to change; but it also substantially reduces the leverage that the customer has over the provider. We need a balance between the customer’s interests and the provider’s, not to tilt completely in the direction of the provider.

MM: If a contractor believes the job is “essentially theirs” they can and often do become inefficient, sluggish and arrogant. This is particularly problematic in ICANN’s case. Because of its control of the policy development process, there could be many temptations over time to cross the boundary between policy making and policy implementation.

MM: A critical part of this dialogue needs to be why ICANN has an incentive to provide the IANA functions at all. It doesn’t do it for the money, so why does it want to do it? No, I do not accept altruistic explanations based on their undying devotion to public service and the internet. Realists and people who study human institutions don’t believe in such fairy tales. I am sure that nice things do provide some of the motivation, especially for specific IANA employees, but in the real world organizations are motivated primarily by what is in their interest and they will do what it takes to survive, and grow or increase their autonomy.

MM: One undeniable aspect is that control of IANA functions increases ICANN’s authority and power. If ICANN runs IANA it effectively controls the root, and all players in the industry, as well as other stakeholders seeking to influence policy, must come to play in ICANN’s space. Thus, making IANA separable and the contract periodically revocable is a critical form of accountability.  It is not just about providing “good service,” it is about balancing power, checks and balances, between a globally centralized Internet governance authority and Internet users and suppliers.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141120/b907f83f/attachment.html>