[CWG-Stewardship] FW: Richard Hill Responses to CWG-Stewardship Questions

[Grace Abuhamad]

Dear all,
Below are Richard Hill's responses to the questions posed in the
Discussion Document.
Best, 
Grace

On 2/23/15 4:22 AM, "Richard Hill" <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

>Dear Grace,
>
>If I understand correctly, I can send to you comments that you will
>transmit
>to CWG-Stewardship. I refer to the discussion document for ICANN52 in
>Singapore, which was attached to the E-Mail at:
>
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001669.html
> 
>
>That document poses some questions, for which I provide my responses
>below.
>
>1.	Do you believe that the transition from the NTIA should happen
>(Please provide the reasons for your answer)?
>
>A: Only if adequate separation and accountability are in place. I
>associate
>with the comments made by Jordan Carter at:
>
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001685.html
>
>And with the comments made by Milton Mueller at:
>
>  http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001779.html
>
>2.	Are you comfortable with ICANN as policy-maker also being the IANA
>operator without the benefit of external oversight?
>
>A: No. Again, I associate with the comments cited above, and I refer to
>the
>JNC submission at:
>
>  http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00009.html
>
>3.	Should registries, as the primary customers of the IANA functions,
>have more of a say as to which transition proposal is acceptable?
>
>A: Yes, for what concerns names. See the JNC submission cited above.
>
>4.	What does functional separation of IANA from ICANN mean to you?
>(this is not referring to having another operator than ICANN performing
>the
>IANA functions but rather the internal separation between ICANN and IANA
>in
>the context where ICANN is the IANA operator)
>
>A: I'm not convinced that functional separation is possible under the
>existing ICANN Bylaws. However, the "Contract Co." approach could result
>in
>appropriate functional separation if it is correctly implemented, for
>example if Contract Co. is a Swiss non-profit association with appropriate
>membership.
> 
>5.	Do you believe the IANA function is adequately separated from ICANN
>under the current arrangements (internal separation)?
>
>A: Yes, because of the role of NTIA and the existing IANA functions
>contract.  An external oversight role must persist after the transition.
>
>6.	In considering the key factors (such as security and stability, ease
>of separating the IANA function from ICANN, quality of services,
>accountability mechanisms etc.) for evaluating the various transition
>proposals what importance would you give to the ability to separate IANA
>from ICANN (separability) vs. the other factors?
>
>A: Separability is the key factor.
>
>7.	Given the IANA functions could be separated from ICANN do you
>believe it would be important for the community to obtain from ICANN on an
>annual basis the costs for operating IANA including overhead costs?
>
>A: Yes.
>
>o	Would it be important to separate out the costs associated with
>address and protocol functions?
>
>A: Yes.
>
>8.	Could there be unforeseen impacts relative to selecting a new
>operator for the IANA functions vs the ICANN policy role (should ICANN
>determine that there will be another round of new gTLDs, how could it
>ensure
>that the new operator would accept this)?
>
>A: If the post-transition legal and contractual framework is correct,
>there
>would be no unforeseen impacts. The new IANA operator would faithfully
>implement ICANN's policy decisions as it does now.
>
>9.	Are there other transition models which the CWG should be exploring?
>
>I refer to the JNC submission cited under question 2 above.
>
>Thanks and best,
>Richard
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5097 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150223/430ea3cd/smime-0001.p7s>