[CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities

Kris Seeburn seeburn.k at gmail.com
Thu Oct 23 18:18:39 UTC 2014 

@ Seun :  I stand corrected but the SO/ACs have representation on the ICANN board already so the representation is there. What i am tempted to see going forward really is to formalise a council or whatever between the main groups on the CWG as it is right now with chairs and whatever to have a structure of oversight on IANA.


@ All: I would love to see IANA as an entity independent completely and we ascertain an oversight on it via some process or entity. If we do that the challenges of administration and costs etc., would get in the process which ICANN happily does today. If we turn it around and say we work on developing an Entity that keeps only an oversight role having all CWGs together as we work on setting up a common Policy Development Process within the CWG to ascertain that the varied groups are doing a common force of work. That could just play the bit. We ensure a leadership of an Entity group and this same entity group creates an influx for the PDP which would replicate the RIR process for the PDP but should be enough to ensure that there is a clear and transparent process where issues arise.

Kris


> On Oct 23, 2014, at 9:49 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> +1. Just to also mention that this route may even complicate things further. One of the questions govt would ask the ccNSO is "who made you Lord over us to sign a contract on our behalf"
> 
> I think the more we think that contract is the only way forward, the more we loose focus on the main point of weakness which is the names PDP; how can we ensure that the names PDP gets strengthened and immune from ICANN board interference as much as possible is the puzzle for me. This is one of the reasons why the numbers PDP has progressed for so long (not just because it has membership). One way to approach this could be to consider having actual representation of the relevant SO/AC on the board. That way the community will indirectly have an oversight on the implementation of policies they have created.
> 
> Nevertheless, having an ultimate jury that can come to the rescue if ICANN becomes so out of control (which is improbable) is a good thing to consider. Thinking about this I wonder if IETF (being a longer historical source) will not fit for such role.
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> 
> On 23 Oct 2014 18:13, "Guru Acharya" <gurcharya at gmail.com <mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com>> wrote:
> I'm not versed with US law, but at the face of it, I see a few anomalies in Becky's suggestion that an unincorporated entity (comprising of CCNSO & GNSO) can enter into a SLA contract with ICANN.
> 
> Firstly, the parallel/analogy with NFL is flawed.
> 
> Even though NFL is an unincorporated association, the 32 independent teams that comprise the unincorporated association are legal entities. These 32 legal entities then collectively enter to into pooled-rights contract with any third party.
> 
> In comparison, CCNSO and GNSO are not legal entities; and they can not form an unincorporated association.
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>> wrote:
> The law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in the US, the question is whether there is an enforceable contract and not whether one of the contracting parties is a formal legal entity.  I can assure you, the NFL enforces contracts all the time.
> 
> 
> J. Beckwith Burr
> 
> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
> 
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
> 
> Office: + 1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932>  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>  / becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>
> 
> From: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca <mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>>
> Date: Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 12:04 PM
> To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>>, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com <mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com>>
> Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
> 
> Becky – you raise a very important point as to whether unincorporated entities can enter into enforceable contracts.  If they can, it may simplify things considerably e.g. have ccNSO, GNSO, ALAC? 'take over’ the contact with ICANN.  I had been labouring under the assumption that the ccNSO, GNSO would have to incorporate to do this.  How can we get clarity on this?
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Allan 
> 
>  
> 
> 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 Burr, Becky
> Sent: October-23-14 11:43 AM
> To: Milton L Mueller; Fouad Bajwa
> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
> 
>  
> 
> Rather than starting with legal constructs, let’s begin by talking about what we need to accomplish requisite accountability.  To me, we need some independent committee, council, unincorporated association, or representative group to have a contract with ICANN/IANA for performing IANA functions consistent with SLA’s to be negotiated and documented.  We need this entity, presumably representative of IANA service consumers, to have recourse if the SLA’s are not met.  
> 
>  
> 
> If this is correct, then we can look at what kind of legal entity we need for the “SLA Council.”  Seems to me that the core of this group would be registry operators, perhaps with representation from other stakeholders like registstrars, registrants, etc.  Could be stand alone or perhaps housed in ISOC or the IETF?  I am pretty sure that unincorporated associations can enter into enforceable contracts, etc. (For example, the National Football League in the US is actually an unincorporated association).
> 
>  
> 
> Second, we need a mechanism that ensure recourse and redress for a registry that is wrongfully revoked, delegated, etc.  That mechanism can be provided to all through the ICANN bylaws, e.g., as an independent review.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> J. Beckwith Burr
> 
> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
> 
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
> 
> Office: + 1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932>  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>  / becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>
>  
> 
> From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailto-3Amueller-40syr.edu&d=AAMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9jEM_hACGXiATouHvV-V_jUNH5sc3y-bQFzqRD4_qRU&s=WD5mnQGH8gOzXMllT3aJRt_wLg7aZMZR0oiM_ERgS0g&e=>>
> Date: Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 11:17 AM
> To: Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com <mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com>>
> Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Fouad:
> 
> By the “technical community proposals” I assume you mean the protocols community.
> 
>  
> 
> What your argument misses is that IANA _is_ a separate organizational entity for both the numbers and protocols communities.
> 
>  
> 
> The protocol community has an MoU with ICANN that authorizes ICANN to perform the IANA functions for them. That MoU can be revoked, and IETF can decide to use someone else. That is the perfect accountability mechanism. Now, tell me how the names community achieves that same wonderful state? There are two ways to do it: pull the IANA out of ICANN, or set up a new contracting authority to replace the NTIA, which could periodically award the contract to ICANN or to anyone else qualified.
> 
>  
> 
> No one wants “the IANA technical and policy functions [might] fall into the hands and whims of governments.” That in fact is a requirement imposed on the transition by the NTIA. But we do need to make significant organizational changes if we are to meet the requirement of accountability. I think scare talk about take overs can divert our attention from needed reforms and I would resist that kind of talk.
> 
>   <>
> I don't think that IANA should be evolved as a separate entity at all and create new opportunities for bureaucracies for governments and industry control. 
> 
>  
> 
> The technical community proposals are highly reasonable to not make such a big fuss out of it and help IANA transition under a body that is somewhat messed up but can be improved in the long run however, ICANN would need some changes. 
> 
>  
> 
> The technical community has also shown its concern that it doesn't want the IANA technical and policy function to fall into the hands of the whims of governments because it functions to the technical community's needs adequately in its present environment and role. 
> 
>  
> 
> Your challenge and for the ICG is to propose that most transparent and accountable way forward that ensures an open and inclusive relationship with the Internet community treating stakeholders in their respective roles but not giving preference to one group over another another. I don't have to go through the Internet Governance ideals over and over again here.
> 
>  
> 
> First ICANN Board control as the final word for IANA affairs would have to be reviewed and should be taken into a broader community review process. I do not trust the ICANN Board to be able to manage both ICANN and IANA in a transparent and accountable way, their progress over the years has had its own set of troubles already. 
> 
>  
> 
> The proposals are interesting but not the final word. The final word will remain with NTIA and thats my concern from a developing country member citizen perspective. I am going through a great deal of suggestions and proposals and all show a similar aspect, don't disturb the IANA technical function and the policies for IANA developed by the community have work so far but require more transparency, accountability and functional relationships with the community ensuring open and inclusive participation in its policy development processes. 
> 
>  
> 
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> +1 Option 2 is preferred from my end also. However i also added Option 4 as a second preference just incase things get delayed with the accountability process.
> 
> Cheers!
> 
>  
> 
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> you might wish to see an expanded set of "Options", in a Google Doc which has been shared.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B46mlsyZUFF4bZfeWgGCdqIQHCP2BMOy4KZU4RiRiE8/edit?usp=sharing <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1B46mlsyZUFF4bZfeWgGCdqIQHCP2BMOy4KZU4RiRiE8_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=fUDcpKHcSBfPHc8c3PFUK3EGMl9QAYJOV5JFJEPECSo&e=>
> 
> So far, I note that the majority of our participants on the At-Large IANA Issues WG appears to prefer Option 2.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Olivier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 15/10/2014 22:55, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> 
> FYI
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> 
> Subject:
> 
> [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities
> 
> Date:
> 
> Thu, 16 Oct 2014 02:40:47 +0530
> 
> From:
> 
> Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com> <mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com>
> To:
> 
> cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>  
> 
> 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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.slideshare.net_fullscreen_apnic_report-2Dianatransition_1&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=ipQr6NSV4s2YyeTKtleRzaehK6NnJP70z0QOuy57W7o&e=>
>  
> 
> 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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dianaplan-2Dicg-2Dresponse-2D00&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=hsoL84pOSYzJR4QRMfhJYR6ybddmed3Zi1M-kuVH5uQ&e=>
>  
> 
> 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/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.internetgovernance.org_2014_08_04_students-2Dschool-2Dfaculty-2Don-2Diana-2Dtransition-2Dthe-2Dmeissen-2Dproposal_&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=HC19PauLIvR68L1aaQZMUV1ysZRdzy1Rku_FhtwR4P0&e=>
>  
> 
> 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
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-issues mailing list
> Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_iana-2Dissues&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=z-dUNEELhtQ-yVDbG2261BTmwYXpCqVfPM_t-PljY5Q&e=>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gih.com_ocl.html&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=u0-58tAisZxOIbFv-8rGIWKmmQ0MbrreYyVITk4iFgM&e=>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-issues mailing list
> Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_iana-2Dissues&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=z-dUNEELhtQ-yVDbG2261BTmwYXpCqVfPM_t-PljY5Q&e=>
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Seun Ojedeji,
> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
> web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=ZYONh-kEmB5dv3rzYIFWLLSMsZ6JohvhU3mRuNA0IvA&e=>
> Mobile: +2348035233535 <tel:%2B2348035233535>
> alt email:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
> 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-issues mailing list
> Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_iana-2Dissues&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=z-dUNEELhtQ-yVDbG2261BTmwYXpCqVfPM_t-PljY5Q&e=>
> 
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__internetsgovernance.blogspot.com_&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=zkexu-3haN6fnsOXhCc6YlS9R1_kJqU41Ly9Qg6NDw8&e=>
> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_fouadbajwa&d=AAMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=iSr26xOvv_x1A2nuUqvtaRwVOgTvzV0efqUDkGy07cw&s=Q41AU5yY9bUlqSxfJs-fCoCh4KuNHdFYeG8IwC5gisw&e=>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <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 <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

Kris Seeburn
seeburn.k at gmail.com
www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141023/19d45936/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4139 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141023/19d45936/smime-0001.p7s>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list