[CWG-Stewardship] Financing the new IANA

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi Seun,

I can’t claim particular expertise, but nonetheless, some thoughts in-line to your questions:

On Oct 25, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hmm... just to further understand the practicality of this. So the new IANA (names part of the functions) will be funded by the registries right. Well i have a few set of questions below:
> 
> - How does/will something like newgTLD process look like? I.e will ICANN accredit or the new entity?
> 
Doesn’t ICANN already do this? Although IANA does the actual delegation for gTLDs, ICANN receives, processes and decides on the applications that determines wether a registry (new or already existing) is eligible for a new gTLD. This is done using the new gTLD applicant guidebook as a reference guiding the process.
> - What exactly will the new entity be doing?
> 
The way I see it, the new entity will not be a new IANA, but a replacement for the current IANA steward (i.e.: the NTIA). Creating a new steward does not necessarily require the creation of a new IANA. What it will be doing is what we need to collectively figure out and propose to the ICG, but that would surely include awarding the IANA contract to a contractor, making it the principle in that agreement.
> - What will ICANN's new role be? I am assuming PDP (based on IGP) if that is the case it means the new entity will work on the ICANN's community developed policy right? And how does that improve accountability.
> 
Policy development for gTLDs is not a new role for ICANN. It’s what its current role is, and will continue to be. The accountability of ICANN’s PDP for gTLDs and the accountability of ICANN’s management of the IANA function are two different things. I am not assuming that IANA needs to be separated from ICANN as a result of the process we are currently in. It should, however, be a possibility in the event that ICANN attempts to abuse its management of IANA, which constitutes the accountability issues we need to discuss. This will also largely depend on the broader ICANN accountability issues, which will be discussed in another CWG.
> - Who determine what staff to employ for the new entity? I presume there will then be a need for board of Directors, bylaw, membership etc.
> 
If by “new entity”, you mean the new stewardship/oversight body/council/or DROC, then that new entity should probably decide what it requires in terms of staff support. I don’t foresee a need for a board of directors, but I may be wrong in case a BoDs is required in the event incorporation is. Membership and who develops the bylaws should probably be proposed by us (this CWG).

If by “new entity”, you mean the new IANA, I would assume that whoever is the contractor will make these decisions, wether the contractor is ICANN or any other org.
> - Is the new entity going to be established in any country?
> 
Wouldn’t it have to be?
> - What will the composition of such new entities board look like? cctld, gtld, end-users?
> 
Is this the same question as the one above?
> - Who will generally oversee the accountability of the new entity?
> 
I would hope that the accountability of the new entity is overseen by the communities that appoint representatives to its decision-making body. I suspect that both cc and gTLD registries will play an important, although not exclusive, role in this.
> - Who/what determines how the funds is shared between ICANN and the new entity?
> 
I believe that finances shouldn’t be shared, but divided. It makes the possibility of separability (in the event that it is required) more straight forward. The new stewardship org could get its funding from fees collected from registries similar to the registry-level transaction fees collected by ICANN based on its own budget requirements. These fees could also be deducted from the same fees ICANN currently collects from registries, resulting in little to no increase of levies on them. I believe ICANN’s draft budget for FY15 placed the total amount required for the delivery of the IANA functions at about USD 9.5 million.

My two cents on these, but suspect there are aspects I haven’t considered. More thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Amr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141025/86fdb436/attachment.html>