[CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement - Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting

[John Poole]

Jonathan:
Thank you very much for the reply and info.
Best regards,
John Poole

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
wrote:

> John,
>
>
>
> Thank-you for you diligence in following and working with all of this. I
> didn’t detect any inappropriate pressure. Larry Strickling was present and
> available throughout the meeting. Both Lise & I spoke with him and Fiona
> Alexander on various occasions.
>
>
>
> Notwithstanding the above and the excessive number of meetings and
> presentations which you noted my participation in, the overarching message
> I picked up was to do the job at a good speed and to do it well. Now there
> is a well-known adage that goes along the lines of you can have the job
> done fast, well or cheaply but not all three. In our case, doing it fast
> and well will come at the cost of all of our extended and possibly
> unprecedented commitment. Every indication is that ICANN will do what it
> takes to support our work but the task remains very demanding on all of us.
> As “Johnny ICANN”, I can vouch for that!
>
>
>
> In terms of the proposal being well thought through (see Milton below), I
> read that to mean we need to think about and understand the implications of
> any mechanisms we propose and whether or not these will be tolerable to
> relevant stakeholders. In addition, I read it to mean that the proposal
> should contain sufficient detail such that it can be scrutinised and
> interrogated (“Stress Tested”) and not breakdown under such thorough
> scrutiny. To my mind, the latter point supports as simple solution as we
> can produce to meet the requirements in that, the more complex the
> proposal, the more work that will need to be done to make sure it
> withstands interrogation.
>
>
>
> Note that here I view detail to support a simpler form of proposal as not
> being the same as a complex proposal and I mean simple to be that we focus
> our task on the IANA function and rely as much as possible on WS1 of the
> CCWG Accountability to do its related and interconnected work.
>
>
>
> I have not discussed these views in any detail with Lise so they reflect
> my personal views.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> *Sent:* 19 February 2015 05:08
> *To:* John Poole; cwg-stewardship at icann.org; jrobinson at afilias.info; Greg
> Shatan
> *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement -
> Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting
>
>
>
> John
>
> I think your concerns are warranted. I would note, however, that Larry
> Strickling came before the Noncommercial Users Constituency Feb 11 and was
> confronted with exactly the same question you are raising. He assured us
> (and this text is from my notes of the meeting):
>
>
>
> “we (the MS community) are the deciders. He doesn't want to tip scales on
> substance of the proposals. Just make sure they are well thought through.”
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *John Poole
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 6:58 PM
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org; jrobinson at afilias.info; Greg Shatan
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement -
> Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting
>
>
>
> I may be the only one thinking this, but it seems to me the following
> needs to addressed, before proceeding further--
>
>
>
> In late January, 2015, Larry Strickling said: "The community should
> proceed as if it has only one chance to get this right. Everyone has the
> responsibility to participate as they deem appropriate."
>
> Who is the *community* Strickling is referring to? It is not just ICANN
> nor just ICANN stakeholders--
>
> ".... the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and
> Information Administration (NTIA) today announces its intent to transition
> key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder
> community.  As the first step, NTIA is asking the Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to convene global stakeholders to
> develop a proposal to *transition the current role played by NTIA* in the
> coordination of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS)...." (NTIA, March,
> 2014)
>
>
>
> The global multistakeholder community is broader than just ICANN or the
> so-called ICANN community. Both ICANN and the US Department of Commerce
> acknowledge this in the Affirmation of Commitments
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-en>
> :
>
> "... ICANN and DOC recognize that there is a group of participants that
> engage in ICANN's processes to a greater extent than Internet users
> generally. To ensure that its decisions are in the public interest, and not
> just the interests of a particular set of stakeholders, ICANN commits to...
> "
>
>
>
> Subsequent to the March, 2014, announcement, at the request of the NTIA,
> ICANN convened a process led by, and comprised mostly of, ICANN
> stakeholders, but nominally open to participation by other members of the
> global multistakeholder community. Prior to ICANN 52, this CWG had 2
> external models and 2 internal models under consideration, and was awaiting
> procurement of independent legal counsel advice in order to proceed with
> its work. Then ICANN 52 happened. I was not there personally, but I
> attended remotely online via Adobe Connect and also followed the #ICANN52
> Twitter feed. What I read and heard was disconcerting--to name but a few
> examples:
>
>
>
> a) At a Registry Stakeholders Group meeting (co-Chair Jonathan Robinson
> was present), it was said by a CWG-stewardship member that external models
> were "off the table" and referred to statements of Larry Strickling/NTIA at
> ICANN 52.
> b) Jordan Carter
> <https://twitter.com/jordantcarter/status/564718002214432768>
> @jordantcarter: "Pretty surprised at the intensity of #USG and #ICANN
> pressure at #ICANN52 regarding an "Internal to ICANN" solution to #NTIA
> stewardship."
>
> c) Milton Mueller
> <https://twitter.com/miltonmueller/status/564718886562459649>
> @miltonmueller: "The US Commerce Dept is overplaying its hand in Singapore
> #ICANN52. If its up to the ms community, leave us alone, stop tipping the
> scales"
>
>
> Therefore I can only conclude that notwithstanding the public
> announcements and statements of NTIA and Larry Strickling, the US
> Government/Dept of Commerce/NTIA (perhaps joined in by others within ICANN)
> are now trying to control or manipulate, inappropriately, the outcomes of
> the CWG-Stewardship work. Larry Strickling and his ilk do not intimidate
> me--I have already addressed reports of his and other NTIA personnel
> inappropriate conduct in Singapore, with my US Congressman and US
> Senators--House and Senate Hearings are being planned after the current
> recess.
>
> At the same time, positive and supportive feedback was given at ICANN 52
> for the CWG-Stewardship work and process thus far:
> Jordan Carter @jordantcarter · Feb 9 -"Impressed by the dedication,
> experience and skill of the #CWG team developing the names transition for
> #IANA stewardship. #ICANN52"
> Mathieu Weill @mathieuweill · Feb 9 - "I called #icann Board members to
> act as leaders #ianatransition : support volunteers, be clear on assessment
> criteria, dont get to details."
>
>
>
> Therefore, I request the Co-Chairs to assure this CWG that notwithstanding
> inappropriate "pressure" at ICANN 52, our work can continue as before, that
> neither external nor internal models are "off the table." If however, it is
> the judgment of the Co-Chairs, or this CWG as a whole, that this is now a
> top-down process being directed or manipulated from within NTIA or ICANN,
> then I request the Co-Chairs to so inform all CWG-Stewardship
> members/participants so we can end the charade--I am sure most of us have
> better things to do.
>
> External Trust Model proposed change:
>
> All of the above said, I attended remotely more ICANN 52 sessions than
> probably anyone could have who was in Singapore. I listened closely to all
> of the comments made in public sessions dealing with the CWG-Stewardship
> work. I heard Jonathan Robinson give so many presentations of the
> CWG-Stewardship work at ICANN 52 that I thought maybe he had changed his
> name to Johnny Icann :-) .  Based on all of the comments made, I propose
> amending (and simplifying) the External Trust Model by providing (1)
> MRT/CSC and IAP functions (if deemed still necessary), be moved "internal
> to ICANN" by simply making them requirements/terms of the IANA functions
> operator contract; (2) that the Trust property include the IP referenced by
> the IETF proposal
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09> ("
> iana.org" and other associated marks), as well as the Internet
> "authoritative root server" referenced in:
> http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf, in addition to all of the U.S.
> Government’s rights and duties included within its “stewardship” role over
> the Internet and DNS, including the right to issue the IANA Functions
> Contract, and its related IP--e.g., InterNIC, a registered service mark of
> the U.S. Department of Commerce, licensed to the Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers. To reiterate, the purpose of the Trust/Trustees
> is to be the "lightweight" high-level, external contractual counter-party,
> ensuring a free, open, stable and secure internet in accordance with
> NETmundial Statement principles and the Affirmation of Commitments, all of
> which would be referenced and incorporated within the Trust instrument,
> enforceable by the Court where the Trust is registered; Trustees also
> accountable to/selected by/representative of the global multi-stakeholder
> community. The Trust/Trustees would have no operational role in the
> operation of the IANA functions or Internet Root Zone.
>
> In reality, the IANA contract is not going anywhere--ICANN is and will
> continue to be the IANA functions operator under a long-term contract but
> for insolvency, bankruptcy, or material breach such as failing to perform
> the IANA functions as provided by the contract, in which event the Trustees
> would be empowered to select a successor to ICANN in accordance with the
> terms of the Trust instrument. The NTIA's procedural role of approving
> changes to the authoritative root zone file is either not needed or could
> be performed by ICANN itself, the Root Zone Maintainer, or a 3rd party
> audit firm. The External Trust Model provides a minimal, but necessary,
> safeguard of external accountability in place of US government oversight.
>
> I would also note that it appears CCWG-Accountability has a lot of work to
> do--I am glad that is not our job--I wish them well.
>
>
>
> A final note: I am personally perplexed by proposals which discuss
> separating IANA from ICANN. All of ICANN's authority is derivative of its
> role as the IANA functions operator--including ICANN's authority to
> authorize new gTLDs. While the day-to-day operation of the IANA department
> should be separate internally from the policy-making functions of ICANN, if
> you strip IANA from ICANN, ICANN is powerless. If I am wrong, I would like
> to see some authority in support thereof.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> John Poole
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150219/94853863/attachment-0001.html>