[CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities

[Milton L Mueller]

Guru Acharya:
I think the bottom line of your analysis (identifying the three basic options) is mostly correct, but I would quibble with your interpretation of what is happening in the protocols and numbers space.

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>

MM: APNIC is one of 5 RIRs. Whether it has consensus or not is open to debate; there really has been very little discussion, just a proposal set before that community by its secretariat. ARIN, LACNIC and AFRINIC have not started discussions yet. RIPE has some vague initial ideas. What comes out of the numbers process is still very much up in the air.

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

MM: Not an accurate representation of the IETF process at all. There is a vigorous debate on the IANAPLAN list about whether the IETF needs to strengthen its contractual relationship with ICANN.

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.

MM: That is because in the numbers and protocols space, policy development processes are already clearly separated from the IANA implementation functions. But in the names community, there is no separation. This seems to be the same point you make below:

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.

MM: I think it would in fact be possible to separate the policy community from ICANN/IANA rather than vice-versa. But I agree that it would be complicated and difficult.

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.

MM: Again, I do not think this conclusion is warranted yet. One thing you may not realize is that the IANA functions pertaining to names, numbers and protocols do NOT necessarily need to be in the same entity.

But thanks for a very well thought-out post.

Milton L Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141016/1a3d1025/attachment.html>