[CWG-Stewardship] A few additional comments for … Two additional webinars on 6-7 May

Thu Apr 30 17:14:52 UTC 2015

Thanks for helping to highlight where you and I diverge, Milton.  I’d take changing the operator a lot more seriously than you!

Perhaps it is easy for gTLDs – ICANN agrees a contract or revokes it and the instruction goes to the IANA functions operator which implements the change.  Any issues and the argument is with the ICANN Board.

Because of the nature of the beast, the ccTLDs’ relationship is different – contracts are the exception, the decision on revocation or delegation brings in a wider discussion framework and discussions can be considerably more politically nuanced, and a policy framework that has a bit of a history to it.

So whoever takes the IANA functions operator role will need to be aware of the back story and be able to command trust.  It is not straight-forward and while I am sure there’s a long list of people who would be able to update names, protocol parameters and the gTLD part of the TLD registries, I still struggle to think of who might be able to do the ccTLD piece and would also be generally trusted.  (Clue – it is not a TLD or a consortium of TLDs.)

That is why I think that the decision to change IANA functions operator is one that does require careful thought and should not be without some fairly significant effort to get improvements in the performance of the job.  The focus of the CSC should be on problem resolution to avoid going through potentially very disruptive change.

So barriers (cooling off?) to making the decision.  Once the decision has been made (by the communities, not by the entities in the new structure), change needs to be done fairly rapidly.

MB

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
Sent: 29 April 2015 17:54
To: Martin Boyle; 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'CW Lists'; 'Grace Abuhamad'
Cc: 'cwg-stewardship at icann.org'
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] A few additional comments for … Two additional webinars on 6-7 May

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle
MB: I agree with Chuck on this.  Our objective in oversight of the operation of the IANA functions should be to ensure as near a self-healing process as we can get:  spotting issues early and addressing them – and that was the thinking in the CSC design team, using internal escalation to ensure that there is a proper understanding of issues within the management chain so that resources can be brought to bear.  However, that relies on there being a will to resolve issues.  If there is not and we end up with a failing IANA functions operator (as we have had in the past), we need to be able to find a solution and implement it quickly.  That in itself is not going to be easy without also having to face a slog against a reluctant bureaucracy.

MM:

I am glad that both you and Chuck think it would be a mistake to give anyone the right to operate IANA services in perpetuity.

Even so, I still detect a tendency to erect too many barriers to separability. The right to terminate the contract is just basic common sense. It is the simplest and most powerful accountability mechanism there is. IANA is nothing but a clerical service performed for technical coordination needs. If an IANA functions operator does not do the job right, you fire them and find another service provider. True, changing providers can create disruptions, and service providers often exploit these to lock you in to their service. But one of the weaknesses of the current proposal is that it makes this process of separation far too complex and slow. No one in the community wants to change providers for the heck of it. But if they do, we should not make it difficult.

The IETF makes extensive use of IANA, and their MoU says is that they can terminate their agreement with ICANN with 6 months notice. For any reason, at any time. In the DNS environment more stakeholders need to be consulted, so I don’t oppose having a more defined review process, but the idea that we must bend over backwards to ensure that the existing IANA functions operator is given 6 bites at the apple before we can change it is a bit ridiculous.

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: 28 April 2015 22:42
To: CW Lists; Grace Abuhamad
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A few additional comments for … Two additional webinars on 6-7 May

Chris,

While I believe that that separation should only happen after several progressive steps and that it should be only done for intractable breaches, I also don’t think it is wise to make it so difficult that ICANN essentially believes that there is no real threat of that happening because that would be little different than giving them the rights to operate IANA in perpetuity, which I think would be a terrible mistake.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of CW Lists
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 5:03 PM
To: Grace Abuhamad
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] A few additional comments for … Two additional webinars on 6-7 May

Good evening:

1.         It is important that Post Transition IANA, as a whole, remains anchored with Protocols and Numbering, that is with IETF and the RIRs. There are several reasons for this. ( a ) Open Internet Standards are critical for fair competition and low entry barriers. Governments and Users have an existential interest in the work of IETF. ( b ) Numbering, and particularly communications numbering are of critical interest to public policy. Most governments have accepted with more-or-less good grace that that shall continue to be done for the Internet by the RIRs. However, I believe that in the last resort their ability to comment and advise on numbering policy through ICANN/IANA/GAC is a significant element in their acceptance.

2.         The recent debate within the CWG has clearly revealed support for separation of IANA/Names from the other IANA functions and - if possible  - from ICANN. Whether that has been for ideological or commercial reasons is immaterial at this stage. The present CWG compromise proposal is workable for the time being, but I expect that debate on separation to re-open shortly after the transition, not least on the basis of the proposed array of IANA performance criteria.

As a long-time student and practitioner of industrial economics applied to the information society, let me say that IANA, as a fully privatised commercial service, would become financially  invaluable to its owners.  I do not want to see that happen, ever. The first line of defence is to ensure the continued integration of all IANA functions: Naming, numbering and protocols.
The second line of defence is to make it as difficult as possible to separate IANA from ICANN (as to be reformed under the CCWG Accountability proposals). In the last resort, a 'separate' IANA must be protected as a public service against any form of capture. However, that last resort is not yet credible. There are no safeguards in place, not least because the multistakeholder community has tacitly, if not explicitly, come to the conclusion that we do not wish to reproduce all the checks and balances that ought to be present within ICANN, in the IANA context as well.

3.         Granted, IETF/CRISP/RIRs/CWG have all been working to date within their respective 'silos'. So be it, although the risks were already visible in ICANN 50/London. It is now up to the ICG to make sure that they do not materialise. ICG must ensure that there is no 'poison pill' for post transition IANA arising from the 'separability' debate in CWG.

Regards

CW

On 28 Apr 2015, at 22:18, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org>> wrote:

Dear CWG-Stewardship,

Following a request from our GAC member Elise Lindeberg and the two briefing webinars on 24 April<https://community.icann.org/x/ryYnAw> (last week), the Chairs are going to hold two additional webinars on 6-7 May. The announcement will be posted within the next 24h, but I wanted to share the information with the group now.

The two additional webinars will be held on:
6 May from 13:00 – 14:30 UTC (time zone converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+Webinar&iso=20150506T13&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30>)
7 May from 06:00 – 07:30 UTC (time zone converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+Webinar&iso=20150507T06&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30>)

These webinars will focus more on the content of the proposal and less on the work process that led to the development of the 2nd draft proposal. The main value of these webinars is that they will allow for further questions and answers from the community, while still giving the community enough time to submit comments in time for the close of the public comment period on 20 May.

Brenda will send calendar notices to the group with call details.

Talk to you all on the CWG call on Thursday,
Grace

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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/20150430/a746041a/attachment-0001.html>