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

Thu Oct 23 20:23:25 UTC 2014

Agreed, it should be the registries themselves and/or a separate entity they set up.

J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  / becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz

From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>>
Date: Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 3:53 PM
To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>, Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>>
Cc: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com<mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com>>, "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

I agree with Amr.
My prior comment was not intended to suggest that I agree that CCNSO and GNSO should be the contracting authority for IANA. I simply want to say that I didn’t think it is impossible for an unincorporated entity to be the contracting authority.

But Amr is correct that GNSO, with which I have more experience than I care to admit, is not suitably organized for contracting and supervision of an operational function. Because it is focused on policy development, it emphasizes checks and balances among stakeholder groups to such an extent that it is not capable of quick, decisive action. This is a feature in policy development – it is designed to make action without broad consensus very difficult. It is a bug for a more operational and contracting role.

From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 1:04 PM
To: Allan MacGillivray
Cc: Becky Burr; Milton L Mueller; Fouad Bajwa; 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

Hi,

IMHO, what Becky says makes a lot of sense. I would, however, like to caution against suggestions making the ccNSO/GNSO/ALAC themselves the contracting organisations in this kind of model. These organisations are very geared towards policy development.

I can’t speak intelligently about the details of policy development in ALAC and the ccNSO. However, as far as the GNSO is concerned, both its stakeholder group/constituency structure (representing a mixture of special interests) and operating procedures are designed specifically for the purpose of policy development. It carries out its policy development function well; using bottom-up multistakeholder consensus. And although I believe it serves that purpose well, a different sort of organization/council motivated and governed by a different set of rules and agreements will be needed to enter into a contractual relationship with ICANN for the IANA function.

That is not to say that this hypothetical unincorporated entity that takes over the NTIA role as a contractual principle shouldn't include representatives of these communities. This is something I hope the CWG will explore further. Just not the SOs/ACs themselves.

Thanks.

Amr

On Oct 23, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>> wrote:

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] On Behalf OfBurr, 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  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  / 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=uYNoJb1Xnmczm6_q6mCnEFj9sorW34YMemQmjdsyxhY&s=39dnKkbBExTOb_qUp-08IKYzXPiH6wBFDKNPzSnLQcY&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 toÂ 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
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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AAMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=uYNoJb1Xnmczm6_q6mCnEFj9sorW34YMemQmjdsyxhY&s=ejL431Ov6BAJPQstI8yIvdZbjixIw2dwucd33Vd4wEo&e=>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141023/11355373/attachment-0001.html>