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

[Lindeberg, Elise]

As I mentioned on the last conference call - The CWG must come up with a solution to the .int operations. So I suggest this as an issue for a design team now or in the near future. 

Topic and scope:  

Registry operations for .int  - Under the ICANN bylaws Article II, section 2 - ICANN should not be allowed to be a registry or registrar. That is in conflict with the current practice for.int

Policy development - To register under the .int domain today , the applicant must be an intergovernmental organization that meets the requirements found in the RFC 1591. There should be some base document on the policy (not at ICANN) that state the current policy for registration, and sort out procedures for policy changes in the future. that policy 

Elise

Best regards 

Elise Knutssøn Lindeberg
Senior Legal Adviser, GAC representative 
Networks Department
Norwegian Communications Authority 
e-mail: ekl at nkom.no
Mobile: +47 90190947




-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] På vegne av Marika Konings
Sendt: 25. februar 2015 09:42
Til: Milton L Mueller; David Conrad
Kopi: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A liaison from the Board to CWG)

As a reminder, if you have any issues that you think are relevant for a design team please provide the group with a submission of name, a brief description of topic and scope and finally an indication of who should to be lead of the team.

Included are an example of relevant design teams, the ³Draft Working methods² and ³Draft Design team Guidelines². These have also been posted on the wiki (see https://community.icann.org/x/pAknAw).

Best regards,

Marika

On 24/02/15 22:30, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>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)
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship