[CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.

[John Poole]

Dear Avri:
Thank you for your most recent posting (below) about the so-called
"Integrated" model--not only do I concur with your own critique of that
model  ("I personally hate the idea of splitting IANA, and think it is a
disastrous thing to do"--Avri) which saves me a lot of time in this
response, I also have further objections:

1. It is by far the most complex model proposed thus far--exceeding
anything proposed in either of the 2 external models (Contract Co or Trust)
or the 2 internal models pre-ICANN 52. This is counter to comments made at
ICANN 52 (I listened to them all) as well as many comments to the original
draft proposal as being "too complex." Because of its complexity, the
Integrated model raises numerous legal as well as operational issues and
possibly unforeseen problems that will need to be first addressed by groups
outside of this CWG--some of those have already been identified in this
mail thread-*-e.g.*, IETF *et al.*

2. Beyond the question of legal advisability of separating IANA from ICANN,
or the ramifications of doing so upon ICANN's policy making and regulatory
authority which I raised last week, I object to putting ICANN in the
potential position where it could be held "hostage" by IANA functions
controlled by third parties, or the IANA functions could potentially be
"captured," by a select group of stakeholders to the exclusion of the
global multistakeholder community whose interests (*i.e.,* the Global
Public Interest) the ICANN Board of Directors is ultimately supposed to
represent (see Affirmation of Commitments
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-en>).
The IANA department is a small department (11 people) fulfilling a very
important, necessary role in the coordination of the DNS, and apparently doing
it quite well
<http://www.internetassignednumbersauthority.org/reports/2014/customer-survey-20141217.pdf>.
ICANN is the IANA functions operator on behalf of the entire global
multistakeholder community, not just the names, numbers, or protocols
communities. ICANN should thus remain the IANA functions operator
post-transition, as it is pre-transition, without the threat of unilateral
take-over by select self-interested groups.

3. I now have it on good authority that neither NTIA nor ICANN have taken
"off the table" any of the four models (2 external, 2 internal) which were
"on the table" pre-ICANN 52. I frankly do not understand why anyone would
draft a 5th proposal that contains a potentially "disastrous thing to do"
in the opinion of one or more of its own authors, and yet we are spending
precious time on this at the CWG meeting tomorrow. Are we just filling time
and trying to look "busy" while awaiting procurement of independent legal
counsel? Has this CWG really become that dysfunctional? Or are we now
reduced to making dangerous or "disastrous" compromises ("integrated"
proposals) in a feeble attempt to reach "consensus?"

4. I do not understand your statement (below) "as was foredained by the
ICG?" When and where did ICG "foredain" the idea of splitting IANA?

5. Finally the ultimate question that every model should answer to the
clear satisfaction of the CWG before being proposed to ICG--What happens*
"in extremis" *(ICANN insolvency, hostile capture of IANA or ICANN, etc.)?
>From my perspective, it looks like the Integrated model offers nothing but
chaos in such a situation.

I know you are an experienced policy wonk and will not take personally any
of the above (but in fact welcome my straightforward comments). I
personally value your presence and many contributions to the work of this
CWG.

Best regards,
John Poole

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001868.html
Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Mon Feb 23 04:02:22 UTC 2015

*While I personally hate the idea of splitting IANA, and think it is a
disastrous thing to do, it remains possible in this model as was
foreordained by the ICG.

I do hope the Integrated model* helps make that less likely.  but if any
of the 3 operational communities wants to leave, they could.

avri
* and it is not mine though I am representing it, at least over the
weekend - i am one of three authors*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150223/dd8b859e/attachment.html>