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

[Milton L Mueller]

David
I view these as highly constructive comments and would support creation of a "design team" around them. Indeed, it's the only one I see as being really needed at the present time. You may recall that I supported also your earlier comment about root signing. 
 
Not sure we agree 100% on the independence of these issues from the accountability models, but I do agree that we can discuss them productively and perhaps develop requirements for them without committing anyone to a particular model, especially now that the ASK model has moved us toward some kind of middle ground.

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at icann.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:58 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A liaison
> from the Board to CWG)
> 
> 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)