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

[Gomes, Chuck]

Good point Martin.

Elise – Note that it would still be helpful if you could comment to Martin’s request so that we all have a clear picture where decisions are made.

Chuck

From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 3:57 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Milton L Mueller; 'CW Lists'; 'Grace Abuhamad'; elise.gerich at icann.org
Cc: 'cwg-stewardship at icann.org'
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] A few additional comments for … Two additional webinars on 6-7 May

Chuck,

I’m not sure the IANA team interprets national due process, it just needs to see whether it has been carried out.  National processes are dealt with locally and I do not think it is reasonable for the IANA team to be experts in every jurisdiction, but they also need to beware of trying to impose a solution:  it tries to encourage local resolution of disputes.

But you are perfectly correct – the SOW specifically requires the IANA functions operator to present its processes, so it would be good to hear from Elise to help us understand where decisions are made.

Best

Martin


From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
Sent: 03 May 2015 16:08
To: Martin Boyle; Milton L Mueller; 'CW Lists'; 'Grace Abuhamad'; elise.gerich at icann.org<mailto:elise.gerich at icann.org>
Cc: 'cwg-stewardship at icann.org'
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] A few additional comments for … Two additional webinars on 6-7 May

Thanks Martin.  Is it your understanding that the current IANA team interprets national due process and determines that it has been followed?   If so, I would like find out whether the IANA team has the same understanding and also where in the process that happens.  I added Elise to this thread hoping that she can respond.  It is quite possible of course that my understanding of what happens is wrong.  I definitely think we all need to be on the same page on this.

Chuck

From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk]
Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 6:17 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Milton L Mueller; '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

Chuck, comments in line below.

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
Sent: 01 May 2015 14:37
To: Martin Boyle; Milton L Mueller; '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

Martin/Milton,

Please note my understandings below.

Chuck

From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk]
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 6:44 AM
To: Milton L Mueller; 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

Obviously then I’m misunderstanding something Milton.

> The IANA Functions operator (IFO) should simply take ICANN’s instructions.
[Chuck Gomes] I think this is mostly accurate but I qualify that below.

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.
[Chuck Gomes] With regard to technical policy (i.e., Internet Standards), my understanding is that the IFO would check for compliance and does not need specific direction from ICANN in that regard so I think Martin is correct that the IFO doesn’t rely on ICANN’s instructions for its technical checks.  But with regard to ccTLD delegations or revocations, I believe that a Board approval is required.  I do not believe that the IFO is involved in any interpretation of ICANN policy; rather, ICANN staff confirms that ICANN policy has been followed.  I know In the case of gTLDs, no Board action is needed for a delegation of a gTLD but ICANN staff confirms that GNSO policy has been followed before it ever gets to IANA involvement; it is not the IFO responsibility to do that.

MB:  I believe – and Chris Disspain has explained the role to the ccNSO and to others – the Board sees its role on delegations and revocations of ccTLDs as assessing a traffic-light report from the IANA functions operator staff:  it is essentially a process and documentation check, although it could be used to approve a decision where strict adherence to policy (eg on engagement with interested parties in countries where this sort of approach is not carried out).  In my mind it is not an instruction and the role could be done by a PTI Board which has responsibility for the provision of the IANA functions operator role.

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.
[Chuck Gomes] Agreed on the principle of separation policy development and the IFO and I think what I described in my previous comments above demonstrates clear separation but I am pretty sure that ICANN staff must give confirmation (instructions) that ICANN policy (in contrast to technical policy) has been satisfied regarding delegations or revocations.  And I do not think that violates the principle of separating policy development from the IFO.  I of course also agree that “ICANN does not have the power to overrule national due processes” but I don’t think that means that the IFO would be involved in interpreting national due process; isn’t that ICANN’s task?

MB:  For ccTLDs, I do not see where this role is performed.  I’d also be alarmed at other ccTLDs (and hence non-nationals) having a say over a ccTLD.

> I don’t think the IFO should have discretion to make those decisions, it should simply edit the zone file as directed.
[Chuck Gomes] I think this is a correct statement as I have tried to describe above.

MB:  The IANA functions operator’s role is surely (again for ccTLDs) to ascertain that the decision for change has properly been made (and all other decisions can be automated anyway.  But the disagreement is who does have the discretion to make those decisions.

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.
[Chuck Gomes] From a technical point of view I agree but not beyond that.  We would be getting into a very different situation if the IFO has to make decisions regarding whether ICANN policy or national due process is followed.  That would mean that the IANA functions are much more than technical and clerical and it would require very different skills sets.

MB:  the IANA functions operator (and the current ICANN Board) role is not to make the decision, but to verify that the decision is appropriate and correctly made.

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.
[Chuck Gomes] I definitely do not think that ICANN should impose arbitrary conditions or question legitimate national decisions but I do not believe that that means that the IFO should make those decisions. If we have disagreement on this, then I think we need to have some serious discussions so that we are all on the same page.

MB:  I am not arguing that the IANA functions operator makes the decisions.  It is that the ICANN Board does not make decisions and give instructions.

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/20150504/0818535a/attachment-0001.html>