[CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.

Sun Feb 22 21:01:58 UTC 2015

Suzanne exactly captured a distinction that I was about to attempt to
communicate.  This distinction is critical to our work, and *maybe* to the
dividing line between the CWG's accountability mandate and the CCWG's
accountability mandate.

One way to further clarify this could be looking at "IANA problems" (i.e.,
problems originating within the IANA team) and "ICANN problems" (i.e.,
problems originating from "above"/outside the IANA team).

This also brings back into focus the goal of some "separability" models --
to separate the IANA team from ICANN (due to an "ICANN problem") rather
than only being able to use the blunt instrument of taking the IANA
business elsewhere and starting from scratch with a new IANA team.  As I
see it, one of the key features of the "Integrated Model" (which feature
was also discussed before Frankfurt), is the structural separation of
"IANA" from "ICANN"  I'm not necessarily saying I support this model, but
it does make taking a functional IANA team out of a dysfunctional ICANN
easier.

On the dividing line point -- are we as a group going to deal with "ICANN
problem" accountability, or only with "IANA problem" accountability?  I
think we've strayed into the former and should pull back, but we can't pull
back so far that we fail to deal with the latter.

Finally, I think this also impacts the scope of the IAP (at least as a CWG
program): should we be creating an appeals forum for an "ICANN problem"
(e.g., a controversial delegation/redelegation decision) or should we limit
ourselves to creating an appeals forum for "IANA problems" (e.g., action or
inaction by the IANA team that results in a failure to carry out the task
it was instructed to do).  Here again, I think we should limit ourselves to
the latter, more limited course of action.

Greg

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> On Feb 22, 2015, at 2:54 PM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info>
> wrote:
>
> Suzanne,
>
> Thanks for this.
>
> The points you make below are interesting to me because they happen to
> align with my current understanding on the issue (of IANA accountability
> AOT ICANN accountability).
>
> Moreover, it seems to me that dealing with an intransigent IANA here (i.e.
> a contractor that does  not do things they *are* supposed to do, or does
> things they are *not* supposed to do) is the point where an Independent
> Appeals Process may be relevant. And this (the conditions for when an IAP
> may be relevant) represents to me a good example of the type of focused
> issue of what I had envisaged a design team might be able to work on.
>
>
> From experience of outsourcing various services, it seems to me that it's
> important to understand where those risks lie-- an incompetent contractor,
> not following orders it's been given; or a policy body that's behaving
> incompetently or improperly by giving inappropriate direction for
> implementation. (An imperfect but easy analogy from the commercial world is
> in outsourcing certain administrative services, then discovering costs
> aren't going down and management overhead is going up because the
> Accounting department doesn't know how to generate proper direction for its
> outsourced A/R staff any more than it did for its employee A/R staff.)
>
> Much of the discussion we've been having may be placing some of the
> accountability in the wrong place, by assuming that firing the policy
> implementation body would fix issues that are really the result of
> inappropriate directions from the policy-making body.
>
> In any case I agree it's a reasonable discussion to have in the context of
> what we're really trying to accomplish in the CWG, and would benefit from
> some focus.
>
>
> Suzanne
>
>
> *From:* Suzanne Woolf [mailto:suzworldwide at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 22 February 2015 18:48
> *To:* Andrew Sullivan
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.
>
>
> On Feb 22, 2015, at 1:22 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> The IANA function is really extremely small.  It's a critical but
> basically boring book-keeping function.  As near as I can tell, there
> have been practically no cases where there was any accusation that
> IANA did not do exactly what it was supposed to do.  There were
> historically some complaints that IANA didn't act expeditiously, and
> there were _lots_ of historic complaints that an IANA function was
> being used by ICANN to try to impose ICANN policies.  The former is an
> SLA issue; the latter is actually a policy matter with enforcement
> attempts in the policy side of the organization, and is not actually
> an issue with IANA at all.  So in my opinion, accountability _for
> IANA_ would help with the SLA stuff (and also with the case that IANA
> "goes rogue") but would not help with the policy issues.
>
> Does that match the accountability concerns others have?
>
> Possibly as a help in thinking about this question….
>
>
> There's a question here of what people are being held accountable *for*.
>
> In addition to separability as a final backstop, the other feature of the
> model the IETF has, and the RIRs are seeking, is that their contractor for
> the IANA functions that affect them is held accountable for two things:
>             1. Doing what they're told, in a timely and correct fashion
>             2. Not doing anything else
>
> If the contractor doesn't do things they *are* supposed to do, or does
> things they are *not* supposed to do, they're accountable for their poor
> performance-- but the directions come from the policy body, as
> implementation of its policies, and the contractor's accountability is to
> the policy body. In ICANN's case, this is where the Board's accountability
> touches IANA as an operational function, and is separate from any role of
> the Board or accountability of the Board regarding ICANN as a policy body.
>
> The contractor is not accountable for following improper directions from
> the policy body, as long as the agreed-upon processes between the policy
> body and the contractor are followed. It doesn't matter whether those
> directions are improper because process wasn't followed internally to the
> policy body, or because properly-executed policy nonetheless leads to
> unacceptable outcomes. In both of those cases, there's no wrongdoing by the
> contractor, and the only accountability that matters is that of the policy
> body to its users.
>
> In the IETF model, accountability for making bad decisions about what to
> tell IANA to do is maintained in a number of ways, but they're outside of
> the IANA SLAs and I don't see any of them changing in the event that a new
> contractor is selected for the protocol parameters registries.
> Bluntly, isn't the major accountability concern for root zone management
> that ICANN will give inappropriate directions to IANA staff in the course
> of implementing policy? If so, in the case we're concerned about, what's
> broken is the policy body. Changing the status of IANA staff from employees
> to outside contractors, or changing contractors, wouldn't help at all; the
> problem is internal to the policy body, and any IANA contractor (internal
> or external) would be obligated just the same to follow its directions.
> The place to prevent or stop or fix the results of bad directions to IANA
> is in ICANN, not IANA.
>
> I think this argues that the group needs to refine the definition of what
> kind of accountability belongs in the IANA transition discussion. It also
> argues for some care in applying the IETF/RIRs' model for names, or
> expecting them to participate in a model that may fit names better than
> protocol parameters or addresses.
>
>
> Suzanne
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>

-- 

*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/20150222/43ac3c1f/attachment-0001.html>