[CWG-Stewardship] FW: CWG IANA Meeting #34 | 17:00 UTC | 7 April

[Grace Abuhamad]

Forwarding a bounced message on behalf of Christopher Wilkinson.

From:  CW Lists <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
Date:  Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 2:13 PM
To:  Client Committee <cwg-client at icann.org>
Subject:  Fwd: CWG IANA Meeting #34 | 17:00 UTC | 7 April

FYI - CW

Begin forwarded message:

> From: CW Lists <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> Subject: Re: CWG IANA Meeting #34 | 17:00 UTC | 7 April
> Date: 7 Apr 2015 18:26:51 GMT+02:00
> To: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org>

> Good afternoon:
> 
> With a view to thisevening's CWG call may I offer a few comments:
> 
> 1. Regarding complexity: In the Principles, we have:
> 
> 3. Fit for purpose:  Any new IANA governance mechanisms should not be
> excessively burdensome and should be fit for purpose.
> 
> However, meanwhile, we have 60+ pages of the names Transition Plan (with more
> to come from the DTs), 30+ pages of advice and comments from Sidley and no
> information, yet, as to how these Names proposals will be integrated with the
> IETF and RIR proposals.
> 
> I fear that we are well on the way to a 'burdensome' outcome.
> 
> 2. Regarding Accountability: The Client group has been discussing with Sidley
> the relation between ICANN accountability and IANA accountability. It is
> argued that IANA accountability has to be established by CWG independently of
> and in addition to ICANN accountability in the CCWG.
> 
> Be that is it may, and whatever were the merits of the case, today that is
> certainly not a matter for the Client group and Sidley. All stakeholders have
> designated their participants in ICG, CCWG, CWG, by and large avoiding
> duplication and respecting the specificity of each group, including their own
> accountability and reporting back.
> 
> At this late stage in proceedings, any basic change in those arrangements is
> distinctly not on. That would involve shifting the whole architecture of the
> transition process, albeit already heavy enough.
> 
> 3. Regarding Separability: It has recently been stated that  legal separation
> of IANA from ICANN is a requirement. I do not agree. It is at most a last
> resort fail-safe should all normal recourse fail.
> 
> From my point of view and experience, the overwhelming case against legal
> separation of IANA is that it would create a very small technical entity with
> substantial power over the interoperability of the global Internet. As such it
> could easily become a target for capture or acquisition. Protecting against
> that outcome would require the re-constitution of the oversight that has been
> so laboriously - and  to date imperfectly  - created in ICANN.
> 
> In that context, I continue to have reservations about the term 'customer' of
> IANA. They are Users of IANA. 'Customers' implies payment for services
> rendered. That would cross a Red Line for many of us.
> 
> 4. Regarding competition: It has been suggested that the CSC would be
> uni-stakeholder, i.e. Registries only. I must say that had not occurred to me.
> It is not a very good idea and is an invitation to conflict of interests:
> 
> (a) the Registry business is highly concentrated: do you include or exclude
> the largest Registries in the world? (b) we are told that there will soon be
> hundreds of gTLD Registries; most of them very small. All of them with an
> existential interest in IANA and the Root Zone. How will they be represented
> in the CSC? 
> 
> (b) thanks to the (flawed) 'vertical integration' policy, it is now possible
> for a significant number of Registries to be owned by a single Registrar or
> Company. What is to prevent CSC being dominated by a small group of large
> Registrars and a few Internet companies?
> 
> All oversight and decision making bodies must have a balanced
> multi-stakeholder composition and powers. Granted that is asking much from
> most stakeholders, which is why it is critically important to create as few
> new entities as possible.
> 
> Regards
> 
> CW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 03 Apr 2015, at 00:59, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org> wrote:
> 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150408/7083f832/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150408/7083f832/smime-0001.p7s>