[CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Thu Oct 16 13:45:56 UTC 2014
Hi,
While it is convenietnt to thinl of IANA as a finction as opposed to a
department of even a n independent entity, we need to remember that it
is more that just a funciton. It can also be seen as:
- a trained and effective staff
- a set of databases
- a well know domain name
- a user interface
- a set of MOUs and SLAs
- &c.
All of which could theoretically be replaced if one thinks of it as a
relocatable function. On the other hand if it is thought of as an
implemented function with resources and interfaces, it is in practice
perhaps a bit more substantive that a function.
avri
On 15-Oct-14 23:32, Kris Seeburn wrote:
> Greg very much well said. Not to say that IANA is not an entity but a Function.
> A function that directly impacts on the Number community. I agree with what some
> of you said lets look at all options. I would argue that we need to see all the
> options quite fast as well to really move things forward.
>
> For information sake the NRO/ IETF or if we want to be sure consisted of the as
> they loosely called themselves the I* leaders:-
> AFRINIC, ARIN, APNIC, IAB, ICANN, IETF, ISOC, LACNIC, RIPE NCC, W3C & LACTLD -
> should be ccTLD
>
> There focus is on Numbers and we have to agree to that they have a particular
> bit in what makes it work in the addressing and infrastructure part. What APNIC
> have come up is not sole to APNIC but something that these I* leaders have
> agreed onto. It is less complicated for them as i suggested before.
>
> For interest sake i am attaching some information docs. And a bit of the NRO
> view on accountability:
> /The NRO does not believe that the contract with the US government should be
> replaced with a similar mechanism at a global level, therefore a guiding
> principle is specifically not to create any "superior" structure or
> organisation; rather ICANN's accountability should be defined in terms of
> transparent agreements with ICANN stakeholders, in which roles and
> responsibilities, and dispute resolution and arbitration mechanisms are fully
> defined. We believe that a failure by ICANN to abide clearly by established
> accountability mechanisms, and in particular by defined dispute resolution and
> arbitration mechanisms should have clear consequences, and therefore that
> arbitration mechanisms should be binding. Furthermore, they must be
> implementable and effective upon ICANN, regardless of its final structure or
> locale.The guiding principles for defining or strengthening these accountability
> mechanisms should be: that they are transparent, implementable and open to
> improvement; and that they operate in the interests of the open, stable and
> secure operation of the Internet./
>
>
> I hope this gives away some input.
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 2014, at 4:47 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> > <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think it's necessary or desirable to split IANA into 3 IANAs (or 2
> > IANAs, since the other two communities are leaving IANA "as is" and not
> > splitting it up). It may not even be possible. (Those with more operational
> > knowledge of IANA can weigh in here.)
> >
> > Without excluding possible solutions, our fundamental task is to transition
> > stewardship of IANA from the NTIA to some other group, entity or process, not
> > to transition IANA.
> >
> > Greg Shatan
> >
> > On Oct 15, 2014 5:10 PM, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
> > <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>> wrote:
> >
> > Guru,
> > 1. I'm not able to comment on any hypothetical approaches rather than
> > looking forward to the incoming substantial proposals.
> > 2. I'm in agreement that all possible options have to be taken into
> > consideration diligently.
> > 3. In order to achieve a common consensus based proposal there is
> > obviously extensive communication needed between the 3 lines already
> > throughout this process and not after the different proposals have been
> > submitted to the ICG. I'm hoping that your hypotheses are still hypotheses.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Wolf-Ulrich
> >
> > *From:* Guru Acharya <mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com>
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:53 PM
> > *To:* WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> > *Cc:* Gomes, Chuck <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com> ; Krishna Seeburn
> > <mailto:seeburn.k at gmail.com> ; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> > <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities
> > What do you mean when you say that all three proposals have to be treated
> > in the same way?
> > Hypothetically, consider that the current proposals of the numbers
> > (AOC+SLA with NRO) and protocol (MOU with IETF) community are their final
> > proposal to the ICG. Also consider that Option (i) mentioned in this mail
> > is the final proposal of the names community to the ICG.
> > I believe that all three proposals can co-exist as the new entity
> > suggested in Option (i) will only have oversight over the IANA that
> > relates to the names community - assuming we can structurally separate the
> > IANA of the three communities. Do you think that such structural
> > separation of the three IANAs is feasible?
> > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:34 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
> > <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> > and btw the reference line quotes "Names Community *vs* the other two
> > communities".
> > There is nothing "versus" between these 3 lines. They have to be
> > treated in the same way regarding the outcome of a _common_ proposal.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Wolf-Ulrich
> > *From:* Gomes, Chuck <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:43 PM
> > *To:* Krishna Seeburn <mailto:seeburn.k at gmail.com> ; Guru Acharya
> > <mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com>
> > *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two
> > communities
> >
> > Forgive me for being slow but it is not obvious to me that option 1
> > makes sense, i.e., 'create a new legal entity'. I see it as one
> > option, but before we decide it is the best option we should explore
> > as many options as possible. Even if we eliminate the other options
> > mentioned below, we should not assume that we have considered all
> > possible options.____
> >
> > ____
> >
> > Chuck____
> >
> > ____
> >
> > *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> > <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
> > [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> > <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Krishna Seeburn
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 15, 2014 5:30 PM
> > *To:* Guru Acharya
> > *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two
> > communities____
> >
> > ____
> >
> > Thanks for those acharya.____
> >
> > ____
> >
> > IETF and the RIRs were already working in that direction from the very
> > start and even before the official formal announcement from icann /
> > ntia. These were already talks and were well ahead of anything. ____
> >
> > ____
> >
> > The option 1 makes sense and in fact i am wondering how much more
> > talks we will have before we can decide on what is more than obvious.____
> >
> > ____
> >
> > The names community however have a different but more challenging
> > approach. As much as we are technical but we have a different impact
> > on the community. Our challenges are way different for sure. ____
> >
> > ____
> >
> > But good thinking .., perhaps yes a good way forward. But a consensus
> > in way forward is what matters and we all need to agree and that is
> > the bigger challenge. In whatever we come up with we will need a mid
> > platform to agree with everyone to some point.____
> >
> > ____
> >
> > My 2 cents____
> >
> >
> > /Kris Seeburn/____
> >
> > skype: kris_seeburn30____
> >
> > Linkedin:mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn
> > <http://mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn>____
> >
> >
> > On Oct 16, 2014, at 1:10 AM, Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com
> > <mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com>> wrote:____
> >
> > How the names community approach will differ from the approach
> > adopted by the numbers community and protocols community?____
> >
> > ____
> >
> > Numbers Community: APNIC has reached consensus on its proposal.
> > According to the proposal, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN.
> > It proposes to replace NTIA oversight with a Service Level
> > Agreement (SLA) and Affirmation of Commitment (AOC) between NRO
> > and ICANN.____
> >
> > www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1
> > <http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1>____
> >
> > ____
> >
> > Protocols Community: The IETF draft proposal suggests that no
> > structural changes are required as a result of the transition. The
> > MOU between ICANN and the IETF community will continue to govern
> > the existing relationship. Again, IANA will continue to reside in
> > ICANN.____
> >
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00____
> >
> > ____
> >
> > Therefore, neither the numbers community, nor the protocol
> > community appear to be in the direction of suggesting a new MS
> > Oversight Entity to replace NTIA and its oversight. Merely
> > contracts between existing entities will be updated to replace
> > NTIA oversight.____
> >
> > ____
> >
> > Can the names community adopt a similar approach? Can a
> > contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO
> > be expected to replace NTIA oversight?____
> >
> > ____
> >
> > Clearly NO! This approach can not be adopted by the names
> > community because the names community resides within ICANN, which
> > is also the IANA operator. Specifically, GNSO and CCNSO are
> > essentially subsets of ICANN, and therefore a contractual
> > agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO can not be
> > expected to replace NTIA oversight.____
> >
> > ____
> >
> > Therefore, it is essential to either____
> >
> > ____
> >
> > Option (i): create a new legal entity, which has a contractual
> > oversight relationship with ICANN. This would be similar to
> > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-iana-transition-the-meissen-proposal/____
> >
> > ____
> >
> > Option (ii): expect ICANN to self-regulate____
> >
> > ____
> >
> > Option (iii): make a new legal entity comprising of CCNSO and GNSO
> > that is structurally independent of ICANN and require that new
> > entity to enter into a contractual oversight agreement
> > (SLA/AOC/MOU) with ICANN.____
> >
> > ____
> >
> > From the above three options, clearly option (ii) is not
> > acceptable because of the lack of trust in the ICANN enhanced
> > accountability process.____
> >
> > ____
> >
> > I also feel that option (iii) is not feasible because the CCNSO
> > and GNSO are heavily integrated with ICANN and structural
> > separation of these two communities from ICANN will be
> > in-feasible.____
> >
> > ____
> >
> > Also, from the Jordan Carter document, the option on page 7 can be
> > discarded, which makes ICANN the oversight body, as IANA will
> > continue to reside in ICANN, as clearly suggested by the proposals
> > of the protocols and numbers community.____
> >
> > ____
> >
> > Therefore, option (i) is clearly the only option available with
> > the names community.____
> >
> > ____
> >
> > Regards,____
> >
> > Acharya____
> >
> > ____
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship____
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > _______________________________________________
> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
> Kris Seeburn
> seeburn.k at gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k at gmail.com>
>
> *
>
> www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141016/d19a972c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list