[CWG-Stewardship] The Reverse Hybrid Model

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi Greg,

Thanks for taking the time to lay out this model carefully.  I think
it's good to expose it, but I think the exposure makes it clear it
isn't worth pursuing in greater depth.  More below.

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 01:41:41AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:

> In this model, ICANN would still be the source of the right to perform the
> IANA Functions, as in the current internal model.  However, ICANN  would
> enter into an irrevocable agreement with the Affiliate for the IANA
> Functions.

The difficulty I see with the proposal lies in those two statements.

My view is that ICANN is not the "source of the right" to perform the
functions.  The source of the right to perform the protocol parameters
function is the policy community for those parameters (i.e. the IETF),
and the source of the right to perform the number resources function
is the policy community for those parameters (i.e. the RIRs).

The basic problem with this model (and this interpretation of your
description) is that it requires a fundamental assumption that the
functions are welded together, and that there is a single body
responsible for "stewardship" of them.  This is something that the
other communities simply don't believe.

I therefore don't think there would be value in further elaboration of
study of this model, because anything that proposes a single source of
stewardship for all the functions won't fly.

If, on the other hand, the model is supposed to be one in which the
affiliate gets the right to contract for an entity to act as the
naming functions operator only, then it isn't clear to me what work
this wheel is supposed to do.  In order for it to be an effective
steward of only those functions, it basically needs somehow to perform
the job of the community for names functions.  But we already have a
policy body for names functions, however imperfect: ICANN, or perhaps
some subset of it.  So, to perform this stewardship function for
names, the affiliate would have to instantiate most (or all) of the
accountability measures that ICANN needs anyway.  This seems like an
excellent way to re-open a number of prior decisions.  Moreover, it
strikes me that it's quite likely to deliver subtle differences with
the existing mechanisms, which would offer a tempting opportunity to
game the system, a potential for procedural deadlock, or both.

Therefore, no matter which way I interpret this model, it seems to me
that it can't possibly yield enough benefit to be worth exploring in
greater detail.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com