<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Good evening:<div><br></div><div>><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Annex 3 there needs to be a careful reread …</div><div><br></div><div>Thankyou, Matthew. Indeed. I would add that the Section on COST/PRICE, which refers to the collection of fees, needs to be entirely deleted.</div><div><br></div><div>If there is one thing that will set global alarm bells ringing, it is the idea that transferring IANA from NTIA to the global Internet community, in practice means the privatisation and commercialisation of an administrative service which has always been cost-less to the final user. We need more than a re-read. We need a re-think.</div><div><br></div><div>As long as we have an unique global Root (I am in favour) it is quite clear that the IANA function is a natural global monopoly. The scope for abuse is obvious. The structures and policies that we put in place now, must be designed,<i> ab initio</i>, to prevent future abuse. </div><div><br></div><div>Regards</div><div><br></div><div>Christopher Wilkinson</div><div><br><div><br></div><div><div>On 29 Nov 2014, at 13:17, Matthew Shears <<a href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org">mshears@cdt.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi,<br>
<br>
Some comments on the current draft:<br>
<br>
<ul>
<li>How will non-performance related questions be escalated from
the CSC? At the moment their mandate is performance issues and
the proposed CSC composition lends itself more to performance
than policy escalation. <br>
</li>
<ul>
<li>No matter the liaison role of the SO ACs, I would suggest
that policy issues can/should also be raised directly with the
PRT.<br>
</li>
</ul>
<li>How will the PRT be composed, how often will it meet, etc.?</li>
<ul>
<li>Representation on the PRT should reflect but also be broader
than ICANN (additional independent experts) otherwise I
believe we will not have satisfied the key criteria of "support(ing)
and enhanc(ing) the multistakeholder model". The PRT should
meet annually to review overall IANA operator performance and
any policy or other concerns. It should also be convened on
an ad hoc basis to address policy or performance issues as
they arise or are escalated.<br>
</li>
</ul>
<li>Should the CSC assume the responsibilities of the current NTIA
Contracting Officer? I would have through that this should
reside with the PRT. (we may need further elaboration on this
particular role at NTIA, etc., and where it would best sit.)<br>
</li>
<li>The draft has some contract duties assumed by both the PRT and
CSC - is this deliberate? C.5.1., C.5.2 and C.5.3. for
example. <br>
</li>
<li>Do we believe that the role described in the current contract
(sections C.3. and C.5.3.) related to the audit of security
provisions can be undertaken by CSC or the PRT? <br>
</li>
<li>It still remains unclear how the Contract Co could "take
action" per the request of the PRT if the contracting Co. is not
staffed, etc. And, does it need to be a corporation? We
advice on this asap. otherwise we will have to consider another
model.<br>
</li>
<li>Is the IANA function to have independent legal counsel (per
the proposal)? And will that legal counsel role need to have a
more expanded role than delegation and re-delegation issues?</li>
<li>Annex 3 already points to a model for contract options
including up to two options to extend. I do not recall there
being any consensus or agreement on the structuring of the
contract or extension options and this section should be
reworded accordingly - for example to state that all contract
details such as length, options to extend, etc., are TBD. (I do
recall that there was some sense of the room that the amended
contract should remain with the current operator after the
transition for a limited period of time again TDB.)<br>
</li>
<li>In Annex 3 there needs to be a careful reread - see below for
examples:<br>
</li>
<ul>
<li>It reads "ICANN to Provide Qualified Program Manager" and
should read "Contractor....."</li>
<li>Why does the CSC approve contractor personnel changes?
Surely it should the PRT as responsible for contracting
issues?</li>
<li>Shouldn't the Final Report and Acceptance and Inspection be
for the PRT? There seems to be some lack of clarity in the
Annex as to what roles/functions are CSC or PRT? <br>
</li>
<li>Again C.6 and C.7 should be PRT, not CSC, issues and are
identified as such in the section 3 text. Same issue with C.8
and E.<br>
</li>
</ul>
</ul><p>Finally, I share a number of the concerns voiced on the list over
the past couple of days. In particular there are many critical
details yet unresolved. We may rue not addressing these now. <br>
</p><p>On the issue of accountability, I am pleased to see that the
Co-chairs of the two WGs are meeting and believe that we need to
quickly align as best possible these two work streams. If, as is
likely, the amended contract remains with ICANN for some period of
time after the transition the recommendations from work stream 1
(and 2) of the Accountability WG are and remain critically
important no matter what happens after the initial contract
period.<br>
</p><p>Matthew<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org">mshears@cdt.org</a>
+ 44 771 247 2987</pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>