[CWG-Stewardship] Questions regarding InternetNZ's views on the IANA transition

[Paul Szyndler]

Hi Jordan (and all),

 

I wanted to follow up on a few exchanges that Jordan and Chris had over
the last couple of weeks regarding the work of the CWG on the IANA
transition.

In particular, I wanted to ask a few questions in order to get a better
understanding of the reasons behind InternetNZ's position and the
principles outlined in your submission to the CWG's consultation.

 

Among your key principles, there are some that I obviously wouldn't
question - for example, the ongoing independence and policy development
responsibilities of ccTLD managers.

But there are a few principles upon which you base your position that
don't immediately appear aligned with ICANN's core mission nor the goals
of the NTIA's intent to transfer the management of the DNS "to the private
sector".

 

As you know, the fundamental mission of ICANN is to coordinate the stable
and secure operation of the Internet.

Supporting principles include the introduction of consumer choice and
competition, stakeholder participation and the meaningful engagement of
other relevant stakeholder bodies and affected parties.

 

But neither the ICANN Bylaws nor mission statement refer explicitly to
Internet NZ's proposed principles of separability and a distributed model
for stewardship.

How then, do your proposed principles contribute to ICANN's ongoing
mission, and the resolution of the current transition process? Why are the
principles of separability and distributed stewardship afforded such
weight?

In particular, as a ccTLD manager, what has led you to assume and justify
the principles of separability and distributed stewardship, when no such
principles existed previously?

 

My next few questions relate to the fundamental differences of opinion we
have exchanged regarding the future of IANA.  

 

Even if the principle of structural separation is to be accepted, why does
InternetNZ believe that such a significant and rigid act of separation
(establishment of a Contract Co) is required at this stage of ICANN's
evolution?

Is it not equally valid to consider that the codified "ability" to
separate in the future is an acceptable outcome?

Are models, such as a Trust, at least equally capable of delivering a
desired result, without issues such as jurisdiction and structure, that
are associated with establishing a Contract Co.? 

 

I'd welcome your views - both via email and (inevitably) further
discussion when we catch up in Singapore.

 

Regards,

 

Paul

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150205/8e665eb7/attachment.html>