[CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] CWG RFP 2C - Draft Triage of IANA Functions Contract

Mon Oct 27 21:02:19 UTC 2014

Milton - taking the risk of asking more questions, and maybe I am indeed the
only one taking it in this way, but: I don't think the problem with
oversight of names is with the fact that the execution of several functions
is carried out by one body. I just don't understand stand why the splitting
up of the execution would be needed when indeed realizing that the oversight
for different functions is not in one body, nor is likely to be part of one
body.

And again taking the risk that my contribution may not be what you think it
should be, I would highly appreciate it to talk off line, directly if you
think I am wasting the time of this forum or your time. Indeed the intent of
my contribution is to be helpful, not to waste time. My summary conclusion
so far is that:

1-     We mostly agree that oversight should be given in the hands of those
stakeholders that care most, as their "business" would be directly affected
when execution fails;

2-     Some stakeholders do not seem to be prepared to invest time in
oversight, even if excellent execution is of utmost importance to them, and
we seem to want to seek ways to still involve them. My personal opinion is
that we should be willing to educate them and involve them, but that we have
no power nor right to drag them in by their hairs - and there is currently
clearly no common understanding on how to deal with this (ref: to discussion
about ccTLDs, specifically . and IMHO it goes beyond ccTLDs alone).

A proposal that may be helpful is the following consideration for managing
"names":

-        Have general oversight from an SSAC/RSAC perspective;

-        Have specific oversight per domain by stakeholders in those domains
(i.e. at the lowest possible level), and consider defining those domains by
their specific needs. For instance, I can see that brand domains have very
little in common with open gTLDs, or ccTLDs.

So (recognizing it is not a full solution, merely a possible direction for
solving the problem) my proposal would be to embrace the principle of
"subsidiarity" . taking decisions at the lowest level where they can be
taken, ideally by those that are directly affected. And this would require
defining specific domains.

Hope this is helpful.

Best

Maarten

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: maandag 27 oktober 2014 21:18
To: 'Maarten Botterman GNKS'; 'cwg-stewardship at icann.org'
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] CWG RFP 2C - Draft Triage of
IANA Functions Contract

Maarten

I guess you didn't understand my point. The possibility of separating the
execution of the functions has nothing to do with how well or how poorly the
IANA practical work is performed now. It has to do precisely with what you
say needs attention: the oversight function. Oversight for names may or may
not be optimized by combining it with oversight for the other functions.
What happens, e.g., if one part is performed well and the other poorly? The
requirements and procedures are radically different. This is a fact. 

At any rate, I would encourage you to follow your own advice and "keep busy"
developing a proposal that solve the problem for names, and let the other
functions worry about their issues, and let the ICG worry about how they fit
together when the proposals are in. Deal? 

--MM

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Maarten Botterman
GNKS
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 1:11 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] CWG RFP 2C - Draft Triage of
IANA Functions Contract

I'm with Avri on this. Never heard anyone being unhappy about the IANA
practical work ("IANA functions") as such, I think the world sees that that
works, and an old saying in IT is "don't fix it if it isn't broken". It
works. Let's keep the focus on where it is to be, effectively: on the
oversight function organization. A challenge big enough to keep us busy
without also considering a different organization of the functions at the
same time - in particular when there is no apparent need for that.

Or did I miss something?

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: maandag 27 oktober 2014 3:20
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] CWG RFP 2C - Draft Triage of
IANA Functions Contract

On 27-Oct-14 00:31, Milton L Mueller wrote:

C.2.4. Assumes that all of the IANA functions are in the same entity. This
assumption is not warranted at the present time.

Except that the assumption of this exercise is to change as few things as
possible and an assumption that they can or even should be moved to seperate
entities is not warranted.  The solition does not need to match the
structure of the operational communities doing the recommendations.

Without an anaylisis of the effect of seperation, I think it unwise to
assume they can or should be split.

I therefore would rather assume that the unity of IANA should be preserved
until such time as it is proved that sperating them is the better solution.
And until it is proven that sperating them invovles no risk.  Even the IETF
which is assuming it can pull out of IANA at any time has not done a
complete analysis of the risks of doing so. Until we are sure that it does
not pose a risk to the Internet, we ought to be careful about dumping this
requirement.

avri

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141027/7f711064/attachment-0001.html>