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

[Milton L Mueller]

From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk]

Boyle: Obviously then I’m misunderstanding something Milton.

MM: You are.

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

Boyle: 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.

MM: which is part of the ccNSO, which is part of….ICANN. Or are you asserting it is part of IANA?

Boyle: It also has advice from the GAC 2005 Principles.

MM: GAC is part of….ICANN. Or are you asserting it is part of IANA?

Boyle: 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.

MM: This is where the misunderstanding resides. When I said “ICANN” I meant the policy-making side of the ICANN/IANA split, which includes not just the board, but the policy making entities such as ccNSO, GNSO, the ACs. When I say IANA “takes instructions” there could still be ambiguities about the exact way in which those instructions are issued, and by whom, and when, but clarifying that is one of the virtues of separation. I think we both agree that once a policy is set, IFO should implement it, and that IFO does not make the policy or have discretion as to whether to implement it.

Boyle: This is fundamental – clear separation of policy and the IANA functions operator should not be undermined by ICANN giving instructions.

MM: Agreed. My goal is precisely the clear separation of policy and the IFO. This should be clear.

Boyle: 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.

Boyle: 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.

MM: I think it’s clear from this exchange that you are failing to understand my point, and you are overreacting - it’s not me failing to understand the risk of arbitrary and high-handed actions by ICANN. Really, that’s a pretty insulting and uninformed assertion for you to make, given my role in analysing and leading attempts to reform the accountability problems at ICANN.

MM: As for “starting this learning process over with a new contractor,” the learning process has to take place on the ICANN side of the divide, not at the IANA contractor, and be reflected in the ICANN-IFO contract. The problems you mention have occurred precisely because IANA has been a wholly controlled department of the ICANN board. Any contract between ICANN and an IFO could and should clearly account for the concerns you have and make sure that ICANN’s board cannot issue “instructions” that are not authorized or approved by the proper parties on the policy making side of the divide.

--MM

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150501/5f58c88e/attachment-0001.html>