[CWG-Stewardship] Comment on III.A.i (103) Re: For your review - CWG-Stewardship Proposal v2

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi,

This is the first of a series of individual comments on the v2
document.  They represent individual responses to pieces that I
thought would be self contained.  I am writing as I go through the
document, and I'll go through until I run out of time (or energy,
which I guess at some abstract level has an uncertain relationship,
but I stopped trying to understant quantum mechanics before that
chapter).  The goal in each message is to try to provide concrete text
suggestions.  As a general remark, I observe that the paragraph
numbering in my copy does not seem to be perfectly preserved, so I'll
try to provide as much context as I can.

I note that in III, the approach has been altered such that the
proposal moves all IANA functions.  There are, however, still some
adjustments needed.

In III.A.i.103, bullet 1, it says "A contract similar to the current
NTIA IANA Functions Contract to perform the IANA Functions
post-transition;" This isn't quite true, however, because the proposal
is really about the ability "to perform the IANA names-related
functions post-transition".  To that you could add, "(Other IANA
functions would also need to be covered, but the mechanism for that
coverage is outside the scope of this proposal.)"  At least, I think
this is right.  The alternative is to say that PTI would need all IANA
functions to be covered, but that the CWG is indifferent as to whether
it is one contract with ICANN, that then recontracts some of those
functions out to the other communities; or whether the individual
communities contract directly with PTI.  

Similarly in the last bullet there, there is, "The ability for the
multistakeholder community to require, if necessary and after
substantial opportunities for remediation, the selection of a new
operator for the IANA Functions."  This seems to me to be at least
problematic.  I do not believe that all the different kinds of
stakeholders are necessarily going to be involved in decisions about
every IANA function.

So, here's how I'd redo that section according to what I think the
CWG's proposal was:

---%<---cut here---

In order to meet community expectations for the stewardship of the naming related IANA Functions, the CWG-Stewardship, working on the premise that there is current satisfaction with ICANN’s IANA department performance and that ICANN should remain the IANA Functions Operator, agreed that a transition proposal for the names community would require the following elements:

• A contract similar to the current NTIA IANA Functions Contract to perform the IANA names functions post-transition;
• The ability for the multistakeholder community to ensure that ICANN acts according to community requests with respect to IANA names operations; 
• Additional insulation, as needed, between operational and policymaking responsibilities and protections for the IFO; 
• A mechanism to approve changes to the Root Zone environment (with NTIA no longer providing oversight);
• The ability to ensure that the IANA Functions are adequately funded by ICANN;
• The ability for the multistakeholder community to require, if necessary and after substantial opportunities for remediation, the selection of a new operator for the IANA Functions as they relate to names.

It should be noted that this proposal is restricted to names, but it expects all IANA functions are expected to move to PTI.  It is not clear as of this writing whether other operational communities would undertake a contract directly with PTI similar to that into which ICANN would enter, or whether those communities would have a contract with ICANN.  In the event of the former, those communities would need to work out an agreement with PTI for the support of the respective functions.  In the event of the latter, any such contract would be with ICANN, which would then subcontract the function to PTI.  The details of which of these is chosen is irrelevant for the purposes of the present proposal, so long as those details are not inconsistent with this proposal.  In any case, the arrangements for the non-names IANA functions are out of scope for this document except to the extent they impinge directly on the names functions.

--->%---cut here---

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com