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

[Greg Shatan]

Some responses whilst awaiting Jordan's:

We are not transitioning to the "private sector"; we are transitioning to
the "global Multistakeholder community".  Not the same thing, if we are
trying to be careful about language (as we should be).

Separability (ie, the ability to remove the IANA Functions Operator from
ICANN at some future date in response to some agreed triggers) is a
principle that this CWG (not just Jordan) adopted as one of our Principles.
One reason for this is that it does exist now -- NTIA has that ability.
All of the models (including the auDA-inspired models) include this
ability.  Removing separability as an accountability measure would be the
radical step here. Collapsing the NTIA's role into ICANN's would be the
significant change.

The "distributed" model of oversight was intended to provide a barrier to
concentrating power in one body.  Again, this is a feature of several
models. It's not a necessity from an operational standpoint.  Contract Co.,
the MRT and the CSC could be collapsed, but there would be strong
objections from some quarters. Others might appreciate the simplicity and
believe that excess empowerment can be solved in other ways.

Also, if we are being careful and consistent about language, "structural
separation" is not what you are using it to mean. Structural separation
would be the current separation of those performing the IANA Functions
Operator duties from ICANN (e.g., by putting them and their assets into a
new corporation).  Contract Co. Is not "structural separation,"  and
creating it is not an "act of separation," it is (among other things) a
tool to achieve separability.

Trusts have their own issues of jurisdiction and structure.  There is no
easy answer.

Hope this helps.

Greg


On Thursday, February 5, 2015, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler at auda.org.au>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>


-- 

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150205/30902f8f/attachment.html>