<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"><base href="x-msg://237/"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Dear Lise Fuhr, Jonathan Robinson and
colleagues:</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Thankyou for your Poll Questions
regarding CSC & MRT and I look forward to seeing the followup
relating to IAP and Contract Co. Quite apart from the technicalities
as to how exactly one is expected to respond to these questions, I am
rather taken aback by the implicit assumption that the complex nexus
of new entities – currently discussed in the CWG RFP groups –
will ever materialise.<br><br>Allow me, for the benefit of those who
do not know me, to say that my personal interest in this matter
arises from the fact that in the 1990's, together with very few
others, we effectively created the DNS industry that we are now
discussing. For my part, that was mainly from an European point of
view. Thus, I have no difficulty in communicating my personal views,
as you request:</p>
<ol>
<li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><b> Process: </b>The structure and
organisation of the IANA transition work since the London ICANN
meetings have proved to be so complex and time-consuming that I am
not able to credit the process and the eventual results with global
legitimacy. Indeed there is something of a contradiction between the
ideal of a bottom-up, consultative process and the reality that –
except for full-time and fully-funded availability - it has not been
possible to participate effectively.<br><br>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"> <b>Neutrality:</b> The
credibility of the ICG and CWG processes depends on balance and
non-discrimination among multistakeholder participants. This has not
been the case to date. On the one hand, the initial composition of
the members of CWG built-in an unwarranted bias towards the
so-called 'customers' of IANA, i.e. the Registries. On the other
hand, cursory review of the mailing lists would confirm that in
practice rather few individuals are dominating the
discussion.<br><br>Specifically, I am personally distressed that
representatives of a few corporations with very significant
commercial interests in the outcome of the Transition, have been
allowed to participate unrestrained, whereas in any other context
that would have given rise to questions as to the risks of collusion
and anti-competitive behaviour. For my part I have felt cautious
about engaging thoroughly with CWG for that reason. I fear that the
eventual outcome of CWG is <i>ipso facto</i> tarnished with the risk
of collusion.<br><br>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"> <b>Complexity and Capture:</b> Let
me say from the outset that I do not see the need for any complex
nexus of new entities such as Contract Co, CSC, MRT, IAP etc.<br><br>Most
if not all of the functions putatively attributed to these
hypothetical entities should be referred to ICANN. If ICANN cannot
do that today, then it is the ICANN accountability that is the
matter. That has to be resolved in any event; it will not be
resolved by creating a parallel, competing quasi-IANA structure as
envisaged by some of the CWG proposals.<br><br>Specifically, since
some time past, it has been the announced intention of TPI and IGP,
and other Registry based interests, that it should be the Registries
alone who should control the Root. This derives, philosophically,
from the erstwhile CXX trend towards self-regulation (e.g. in the
financial sector) and in practice from a tacit desire to transfer
the NTIA role towards a commercial solution, innocent of the global
public interest.<br><br>Clearly, the more complex may become the
structure, the more easily it may be controlled by those entities
with the permanent financial and personnel resources to do so. Thus,
I lack confidence that the structures envisaged by CWG would
permit representatives of the public interest, whether civil society
or governments to exercise any decision making role in these
matters.<br><br>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"> <b>Commercial incentives:
</b>Contrary to the relatively
passive, if not benign, environment of recent years, the advent of
the new gTLD programme has transformed, overnight, the business
environment of the control over the Root.<br><br>An entry to the
Root for a new gTLD is now potentially worth millions. This seems to
be already the case, even whilst the current new gTLD launches are
still far from their anticipated success. Be that as it may, any new
IANA entities controlled by Registrar and Registry interests would
come under enormous commercial pressures to interpret any rules in
their favour. Again, I lack confidence that any such new IANA
entities would necessarily demur to decisions by ICANN on advice
from the GAC. From my point of view, the much discussed separation
between Policy and Administration of IANA would likely break down in
the face of the scale of the commercial interests present.<br><br>This
unwelcome prospect is aggravated by the expectation that a few very
large Registrars and other major Internet corporations might be able
to exercise their weight in IANA on the basis of their ownership of
significant portfolios of multiple Registries. This harks back to
the so-called 'vertical integration' decision in the new gTLD
programme.<br><br>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"> <b>Commercialisation
of IANA? </b>The advocates of
'separability' between ICANN and IANA have necessarily had to
address the question as to how their new IANA (and related separate
entities, see above) would be financed. There is one proposal that
'IANA-bis' would charge fees. Of course, cost-based and not for
profit. But we have seen how in principle cost based not for profit
fees can be abused by ICANN itself in the new gTLD programme. <br><br><i>A
fortiori,</i> a separate,
commercial IANA, under the control of the Registries and Registrars,
operating a critical element of the Internet infrastructure as a
global monopoly, could charge whatever it likes. For present
purposes I forebear to outline a likely fee structure, but it takes
not much imagination.<br><br>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><b> The IANA Coordinating Group
(ICG)</b>: I have noticed that
among CWG participants there is a tendency to minimise the role of
the ICG; specifically to the effect that ICG should not negotiate or
arbitrate the outcome, but if necessary, just send non-viable
proposals back to the CWG (and IETF, CRISP etc.) for
reconsideration. Frankly, as I suggested in the London ICANN Open
Forum, that is not plausible, particularly in view of the declared
time-lines. We already know that the IETF and CRISP submissions are
significantly at variance with those that CWG is envisaging.<br><br>I
think that it is time the Naming Community came back to Earth. The
one thing that apparently everyone agrees upon is that the IANA
functions are currently administered perfectly well, thankyou very
much. 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br> * * *</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">In conclusion, I must say that I feel
that it would be more useful to reserve any further advice and
comment on my part in due course to the ICG.</p></li></ol><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>Meanwhile, you
will understand from all of the above, that I have reservations about
responding, in the CWG context, to what is becoming a quite
unbalanced argument – almost a lobby - on behalf of commercial
Registry and Registrar interests, with which the global Internet
community, not to speak of our governments, would be quite unable to
endorse.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Regards</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>Christopher Wilkinson</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
</p><div><div>On 31 Dec 2014, at 14:36, Lise Fuhr <<a href="mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk">lise.fuhr@difo.dk</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><span lang="EN-US">Dear all,</span><o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><span lang="EN-US">In order to help frame our work during the Intensive Work Weekend (10-11 January), we will put together a survey for the CWG based on suggestions proposed during the Public Comment.</span><o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><span lang="EN-US">We present the draft now, so that the group can review and give their feedback. Please be aware that it is a very<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>early draft.<span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><span lang="EN-US">You may use the mailing list of course, but Greg Shatan has also offered to use the RFP3 call on Friday 2 January at 14:00 UTC as an opportunity for discussion. We will review the feedback following the RFP3 call and expect to put out the survey to the group on Friday 2 January. This gives the group just 7 days to complete the survey in time for the Intensive Work Weekend.</span><o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><span lang="EN-US">As with all the CWG work to date, we realize that this is a short turnaround time, but would appreciate the guidance in order to make the Intensive Work Weekend as productive as possible.</span><o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><span lang="EN-US">Happy New Year<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><span lang="EN-US">Lise & Jonathan<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><span><IANA CWG Poll Questions for the CSC MRT Draft 14.12.30.docx></span>_______________________________________________<br>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>