[CWG-Stewardship] Draft of Principles

Thu Nov 6 19:31:20 UTC 2014

I agree we need to simplify and generalize these draft principles.
Hopefully this will allow us to quickly move on to actual proposal
development. Following the discussions here, it seems the following would
suffice as a guide to creating a proposal that ensures accountability:

<principles>

Independence - any proposal must ensure that the IANA functions operator be
independent of TLD policy processes.  Its role is to implement changes in
accordance with TLD policy agreed through the relevant policy process;

Separability - any proposal must ensure the ability to 1) separate the IANA
functions from the current operator if warranted, and 2) to convene a
process for selecting a new operator. Separability should persist through
any future transfers of the IANA function(s); [Note: The NTIA's current
contract already requires such separation]

Transparency - any proposal must ensure that delegation or redelegation
decisions implemented by the IANA functions operator and the rational for
those decisions should be made public or at least be subject to an
independent scrutiny as part of an ex-post assessment of service
performance.

<end principles>

For me, these are the basics that are needed. While SLAs certainly need to
be defined and referred to (e.g., what conditions warrant that the IANA
function be separated from the operator?), I'm not certain we need them
in principles.  And while I understand the appeal of appeals, I think what
we really want is some guarantee that the IANA functions operator follows
exactly what is determined by policy (and that that process is fully
accountable, has appeals, etc. - but this is another battle).

Happy to see these revised, etc. I include the current draft principles
language below for comparison.

---------------------------------------
Dr Brenden Kuerbis
iSchool, Syracuse University || http://internetgovernance.org
<http://internetgovernance.org/>
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

>  Mwendwa,
>
>
>
> Regarding your first question,  let me first say that I don’t see
> ‘bottom-up’ as a cliché.  Secondly, it is a fundamental principle of policy
> development.  I think it is important to note that the principle is not
> saying that IANA functions are operated in a bottom-up way but rather that
> the IANA functions operator’s role is to implement changes according to
> such policies.  As I see it, the essence of this principle is not that
> policy development must be bottom-up but rather that “the IANA functions
>  operator should be independent of the policy processes”.  That said, is
> the term ‘bottom-up’ essential to the principle?  No.  And I think that is
> probably your point.  I personally don’t have any problem leaving
> ‘bottom-up’ in the statement but I don’t think removing it if the group
> wants to do that would detract from the principle.
>
>
>
> If we want to keep the principle short and to the point, we could delete
> the second sentence.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mwendwa Kivuva
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 06, 2014 5:59 AM
> *To:* Milton L Mueller
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft of Principles
>
>
>
> *Independence of policy from IANA*:  the IANA funtions  operator should
> be independent of the policy processes.  Its role is to implement changes
> in accordance with policy agreed through the relevant bottom up policy
> process [Note:  this does not pre-suppose any model for separation of the
> policy and IANA roles.  The current contract already requires such
> separation];
>
>
>
> Is bottom up a cliche we want to see in our principles?
>
>
>
>  *Diversity of IANA’s Customers:*
> *For ccTLDs,* the IANA should provide a service without requiring a
> contract and should respect the diversity of agreements and arrangements in
> place for ccTLDs.  In particular, the national policy authority or
> legislation (related to the ccTLD operator) should be respected and no
> additional requirements should be imposed unless it is directly and
> demonstrably linked to global security, stability and resilience of the DNS.
>
>
>
> "unless it is directly and demonstrably linked to global security,
> stability and resilience of the DNS"
>
> Is there any example of a policy that can be implemented at the ccTLD
> level that can threaten the DNS?
>
>
>   ______________________
> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
> L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh
> B: http://lord.me.ke/
> T: twitter.com/lordmwesh
>
> "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on
> higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
>
>
>
> On 5 November 2014 20:40, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> I agree 100% with Avri. Separability has to be a principle, otherwise we
> have failed the accountability test.
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 4, 2014 9:16 PM
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft of Principles
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> While actual separation and the means of implementing that separation may
> be solutions, I am strongly of the opinion that the potential to separate
> MUST be a principle any solution is built on.  It may never be exercised,
> but it would be unacceptable for there to be a solution that prohibited or
> did not otherwise allow any possible future separation of the function from
> ICANN.
>
> This is one of several principles I feel I must personally argue for
> persistently, and without which any solution would be unsatisfactory.
>
> avri
>
> On 05-Nov-14 10:45, Guru Acharya wrote:
>
> Avri,
>
>
>
> While I agree that separability should be a part of the solution, I don't
>
> think it can be made a principle.
>
>
>
> There are many who want IANA to perpetually reside in ICANN. They believe
>
> that self regulation will ensure accountability and that the need for
>
> separability does not exist.
>
>
>
> Therefore, separability may be a component of your solution rather than a
>
> principle for all solutions.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Guru
>
> On 5 Nov 2014 04:00, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>   Hi,
>
>
>
> Comments:
>
>
>
>  a.       *Oversight, accountability and transparency*:  the service
>
> should be accountable and transparent.
>
>
>
>
>
> I see no reason to include the term 'oversight' here.
>
>
>
>                       i.      *Independence of oversight*:  Oversight
>
> should be independent of the IANA functions operator and should assure the
>
> accountability of the operator to the (inclusive) global multi-stakeholder
>
> community;
>
>
>
>
>
> I recommend removing this as a principle for the following reasons:
>
>
>
> a. I do not think oversight is a principle, but one possible solution to
>
> the accountability issue.
>
> b. if 'oversight' is a component of the solution, I do not understand how
>
> it is independent of the stakeholders to whom ICANN is also accountable, so
>
> the notion of 'Independence' is not a principle I understand in this case.
>
> Yes any possible oversight mechanism should be independent of ICANN
>
> corporate, but I do believe it is accountable to the same stakeholders as
>
> is ICANN.
>
>
>
> I think we need a specific principle on accountability in this section:
>
>
>
> Accountability: Post transition accountability on the IANA Stewardship
>
> function should be to the Internet stakeholder community.
>
>
>
> I also think we need to add a principle called separability
>
>
>
> Separability: In the event that the ICANN corporation, or any of its
>
> subsidies, remains responsible for the IANA functions after the transition
>
> of stewardship, it should remain possible for a well formed review and
>
> contracting granting authority to reassign the IANA function to a new IANA
>
> service provider(s).  The power of removing the function to a different
>
> operator should persist through any future transfers of the the IANA
>
> function(s)
>
>
>
> Under (c.) I recommend that we include the principle that service levels
>
> be subject to independent audit, with results published for review by the
>
> Internet community on an annual basis.
>
>
>
> thanks
>
>
>
> avri
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141106/766c2332/attachment-0001.html>