[CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
Erick Iriarte
eiriarte at iriartelaw.com
Fri Oct 24 18:42:47 UTC 2014
Only to ad to Peter Answer
ccTLDs unaffiliated (free riders ), have direct relation with IANA (historically (for first delegation), or for changes in their delegation (again with IANA).
The must see the ccTLD situation more in a complete perspective, in special about legislation related with the operation of cctlds in some countries , the legal nature of ccTLD, and also the relations with governments. For example in Cuba ccTLD .cu (the operation not the ccTLD as part of the DNS system) was created by a Resolution of the Government in 1996 (IANA did not mentioned in the document: http://www.latinoamericann.org/?q=node/1806 ) or the Bolivian ccTLD operation was created as civil society then “assimilated” to the government (in the information society agency that appear now in IANA as a contact (again the creation of cctld .bo operation did not said IANA anywhere: http://www.latinoamericann.org/?q=node/1809 )
So, is clear al the ccTLDs have real relation with IANA (appear in the root server), but how each cctld sees itself (in special in the cases the operation is inside a governmental entity) is different.
Yours,
Erick
El 24/10/2014, a las 02:20, Peter Van Roste <peter at centr.org> escribió:
> Thanks Tracy for raising this.
> Becky is right, this process is open to all ccTLDs. The regional organisations are reaching out to those that are not in the ccNSO and to those that are unaffiliated in their respective regions.
> However, it should be taken into account when discussing the future role the ccNSO could play, that some ccTLDs will not recognize the ccNSO as a representative of their interests.
>
> Some stats:
> Out of the 248 ccTLDs:
> 152 are members of the ccNSO. Most of those are also a member of their regional organisation (AfTLD, APTLD, CENTR and APTLD).
> 38 ccTLDs are members of their regional organisation but not of the ccNSO.
> 58 ccTLDs are unaffiliated.
>
> Regards,
> Peter Van Roste
> General Manager, CENTR
>
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky
> Sent: donderdag 23 oktober 2014 23:37
> To: Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google; Allan MacGillivray
> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
>
> Some of those who do not participate in the ccNSO do participate in regional organizations such as LACTLD and APTLD. We have also set up a global list to communicate with ccTLDs that don’t participate in either. Note that the ccNSO rules permit cc’s to participate fully without actually joining the ccNSO itself.
>
> 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 / www.neustar.biz
>
> From: "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" <tracyhackshaw at gmail.com>
> Date: Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 5:31 PM
> To: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>
> Cc: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>, Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com>, "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
>
> What about the ccTLDs who are NOT part of the ccNSO ... has this been discussed/dealt with already?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca> wrote:
> So let’s see if I have got this correct. The idea is that the registries would set up a corporation that could contract with IANA, either as a stand-alone entity or as a department of ICANN, for the performance of the IANA functions – let’s call it ‘RegistryCo’ for short. Would there not be liability concerns on the part of many registries to being directors of RegistryCo? Even if they could be convinced, would those ccTLDs that are governments be comfortable with such an approach? And it would need some money to get going. Incorporating does take little money, but negotiating the contract would be quite another issue.
>
>
>
> From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz]
> Sent: October-23-14 4:20 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller; Guru Acharya
> Cc: Allan MacGillivray; Fouad Bajwa; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
>
> Correct. In any case, it takes very little time or money to create a light weight legal entity.
>
> 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 / www.neustar.biz
>
> From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> Date: Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 3:41 PM
> To: Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>
> Cc: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>, "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities
>
> No. Guru this is incorrect. Both the CCNSO and the GNSO are made up of mostly incorporated legal entities. Certainly the TLD registries in both entities are legally incorporated.
>
> From: Guru Acharya [mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com]
>
>
> 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> 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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
>
> From: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>
> Date: Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 12:04 PM
> To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
> Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <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] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky
> Sent: October-23-14 11:43 AM
> To: Milton L Mueller; Fouad Bajwa
> Cc: 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 / www.neustar.biz
>
> From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> Date: Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 11:17 AM
> To: Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
> Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <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> 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> 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
>
> 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>
> To:
> 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
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-issues mailing list
> Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues
>
>
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-issues mailing list
> Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Seun Ojedeji,
> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
> Mobile: +2348035233535
> alt email: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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141024/76d19a38/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list