[CWG-Stewardship] Another alternative proposal - addressing some questions

Thu Jan 29 22:38:49 UTC 2015

Hi all, and Chris:

Our position is set out with great clarity on this matter in our response
to this group's call for comment in December. I reattach that in case it is
useful. In particular the sections on key principles and on community
stewardship are of relevance.

I may not be framing my question in a manner that makes sense, so let me
try again below.

First, though, the whole work of this CWG in preparing its proposal which
it consulted on in December was an understanding of the importance of a
distributed model for the stewardship of the DNS. That is the status quo.

That's what we have today, with the various roles and responsibilities of
NTIA, ICANN and Verisign.

That's what we support.

That's what the primary model the CWG has proposed will deliver.

Those of you who are advocating for an internal-to-ICANN solution are the
people who are up-ending the status quo. It is that set of changes that
creates risks to the stability and security of the DNS. And yet, the
undertone in comments of those against the CWG's model is that it is the
other way around - that preserving the current distributed stewardship
approach creates risks.

I think the case for the status quo and for preserving it - distributed
stewardship - is the orthodox position. Wrapping everything into ICANN is
the novel proposition.

The onus is on those proposing such a radical change to say why it is
better than today. That is the case that I haven't seen made, and I have
read the document your team prepared and released recently, and I have read
the earlier material too.

It just seems to be a variant of "trust us, we can do it." I keep looking
for more than that.

That's what I am trying to understand. I apologise if I haven't made that
clear, and apologise even more if this remains unclear!

As we can observe on this list there is a thorough effort going on in
developing the detail of the specific questions you ask me, and I think
that process will lead to a workable outcome. That is why I am focusing my
time and attention on the accountability list.

cordialement, and see you in Singapore,

Jordan

On 30 January 2015 at 11:25, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au> wrote:

> It would still be very useful, even at what seems to be quite a late
> point, for those advocating an internal solution to set out the
> counter-case...
>
>
> Jordan,
>
> auDA is an advocate of an internal solution. Paul Szyndler will happily
> provide you (ASAP) with details of our views and why we hold them as well
> as an explanation of why our proposed alternative models provide a high
> level of comfort about 'pulling' the rights.
>
> May I ask you to explain in detail Internet NZ's position please? I have
> seen a number of emails from you suggesting that you believe in an external
> to ICANN model 'as a matter of principle' but (and I acknowledge that I may
> have missed them) have seen nothing that explains why you believe that or
> that addresses how you think such a model contributes to the security,
> stability and resilience of the DNS.
>
> Further, as you have admirably demonstrated with some of your comments on
> our proposed alternative models (and I have always acknowledged) the devil
> is in the details so perhaps you could also address how you would envisage
> contract co being set up, who the shareholder/members would be, what checks
> and balances would be in place to ensure that it could not act outside the
> will of the IANA customers or be used for 'political' purposes by holding
> the ICANN community to ransom over some issue that has nothing whatsoever
> to do with IANA?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer
>
> .au Domain Administration Ltd
>
> T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112
>
> E: ceo at auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au
>
> auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator
>
>
> *Important Notice* *- *This email may contain information which is
> confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use
> of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you
> must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received
> this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message
> immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
> On 30 Jan 2015, at 09:06 , Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On 29 January 2015 at 18:57, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> However, we can too easily be bogged down in details.  In this case, the
>> devil may not be in the details.  Instead, I think the issue is at a higher
>> level -- oversight, control and accountability -- and at an even higher
>> level -- trust (not "trusts"...).  I think concerns about the trust model
>> arise less from the details and more from a great deal of concern about
>> ICANN being the "rightsholder" in relation to being the IANA Functions
>> Operator, rather than being granted that right by a third-party
>> rightsholder (now, NTIA; potentially in future, Contract Co.) who can
>> "pull" those rights per the contract.  These concerns may not abate merely
>> because these rights are being held "in trust" for the beneficiaries (the
>> "community" or some variation).  These fundamental concerns relate to both
>> ICANN as the IANA Functions Operator and ICANN generally,
>>
>> What we need to resolve, if an internal-to-ICANN solution is to fly, is
>> whether there are methods of oversight, accountability and separability
>> that ICANN can and will adopt that will sufficiently alleviate these deeply
>> held concerns.  If not, then we need the best available solution where the
>> right to act as IANA Functions Operator is held outside ICANN,
>>
>
> I think this is the most eloquent statement yet of the nature of the
> concerns I have about any internal solution.
>
> It would still be very useful, even at what seems to be quite a late
> point, for those advocating an internal solution to set out the
> counter-case...
>
> cheers
> Jordan
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
>
> *To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*
>
>  _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>

-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ*

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter

*To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150130/d4b11943/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2014-12-22-CWG-IANA-submission-InternetNZ.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1777250 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150130/d4b11943/2014-12-22-CWG-IANA-submission-InternetNZ-0001.pdf>