[CWG-Stewardship] A few additional comments for … Two additional webinars on 6-7 May

[Martin Boyle]

Obviously then I’m misunderstanding something Milton.

> The IANA Functions operator (IFO) should simply take ICANN’s instructions.

Err, no!  The IANA functions operator should base its decisions on agreed policy.  In ccTLD cases, rfc1591 is now supplemented (informed) by the work of the Framework of Interpretation Working Group.  It also has advice from the GAC 2005 Principles.  ICANN (as the Board) does not have a role in telling the IANA functions operator what to do in the case of ccTLD delegations or revocations.

This is fundamental – clear separation of policy and the IANA functions operator should not be undermined by ICANN giving instructions.  And if I remember correctly this principle is clearly embodied in the SOW.  And ICANN does not have the power to overrule national due processes.

> I don’t think the IFO should have discretion to make those decisions, it should simply edit the zone file as directed.

The issue – and hence the complexity – is about who actually has the right to make the decisions and direct the IANA functions operator.  The role of the IANA functions operator is to identify that a decision is appropriate – and the SOW gives some guidance to that, as does the work of the FOIWG.  But it is absolutely not ICANN’s decision.

Your failure to understand this is perhaps why you feel quite casual about re-bidding the IANA functions operation and I do not.

The ccTLD community has seen the friction caused by ICANN imposing arbitrary conditions or questioning legitimate national decisions.  (This history of this high-handed approach was one of the motivations for the 2005 GAC Principles.)  I do not think that I’m alone in wanting to avoid as much as possible having to start the learning process again with a new contractor.


Martin

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
Sent: 30 April 2015 18:48
To: Martin Boyle; 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'CW Lists'; 'Grace Abuhamad'
Cc: 'cwg-stewardship at icann.org'
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] A few additional comments for … Two additional webinars on 6-7 May


Thanks for helping to highlight where you and I diverge, Milton.  I’d take changing the operator a lot more seriously than you!

MM: I don’t think we actually do diverge on this issue, Martin. See below.

So whoever takes the IANA functions operator role will need to be aware of the back story and be able to command trust.  It is not straight-forward and while I am sure there’s a long list of people who would be able to update names, protocol parameters and the gTLD part of the TLD registries, I still struggle to think of who might be able to do the ccTLD piece and would also be generally trusted.  (Clue – it is not a TLD or a consortium of TLDs.)

MM: The IANA Functions operator (IFO) should simply take ICANN’s instructions. One benefit of a separated IFO would be the ability to more clearly separate those sensitive policy decisions that should really be made by ICANN, and those implementations that should be done by the IFO. I agree with you that ccTLD redelegations can be more sensitive than gTLD delegations, I don’t think the IFO should have discretion to make those decisions, it should simply edit the zone file as directed. Do you disagree?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150501/3cafaabd/attachment-0001.html>