[CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A liaison from the Board to CWG)

[David Conrad]

Milton,

>I am flattered that you view me as personally responsible for keeping the
>CWG on mission. 

I'll bill you for the replacement of my irony meter.

>You are of course correct that the NTIA is in the loop for all root zone
>changes.

NTIA being "in the loop" for root zone changes is a relatively minor
issue, easily dealt with in a variety of ways.

Traditionally (well, since the creation of ICANN), NTIA has also been "in
the loop" for pretty much all substantive changes related to the structure
and operation of the root of the DNS, e.g., the decision on whether and
how to sign the root (requiring proposals from both ICANN and Verisign and
ultimately choosing the Verisign proposal after their internal
evaluation), the mechanism by which the plan for rolling the root Key
Signing Key is defined, the decision about whether and how to add
internationalized top-level domains, etc. Even the very definition of the
"three-legged stool" by which NTIA has inserted itself into the operation
of all root zone changes via the IANA Functions Contract and the
Cooperative Agreement with Verisign must change.

Yet, to my knowledge, the mechanism(s) by which issues like these are
addressed in the post-NTIA world have not yet been discussed in any
detail.  Hopefully a "design team" will be spun up to look at the
mechanism by which issues like these can be addressed.

>But it cannot be discussed independently of the issue of whether IANA is
>separable from ICANN or permanently locked into ICANN or structurally
>separated from the policy making entity.

Oh sure it can.

The mechanisms by which accountability of the IANA Function operator can
be ensured that have been discussed to date seem primarily to revolve
around pulling the IANA Functions away from ICANN and giving them to
someone else (even though no one actually wants to do that now as far as I
can tell -- we're told it's for the future).

What the IANA Root Management Function Operator actually DOES insofar as
it involves NTIA should (must IMHO) be independent of who actually
performs the function. As such, it is eminently possible to discuss
independently of whether the IANA functions are separable from ICANN or
not.

>It might even be more productive for you to suggest specific models for
>changes in the operational practice of root zone changes minus NTIA.

If you might recall, I did, describing one way in which flaws I see in the
existing "three-legged stool" could be addressed. Long ago, I also tried
to get folks to address NTIA's direct involvement in root zone management.
To little avail -- a small number of folks seem to redirect all discussion
towards the accountability stuff.

In my opinion, while I would agree the accountability stuff is important
and needs to be addressed, it should not preclude addressing the other
critical issues associated with the transition.

Regards,
-drc
(ICANN CTO but speaking only for myself)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4673 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150224/04dcbdaa/smime-0001.p7s>