<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Milton L Mueller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu" target="_blank">mueller@syr.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="14bb3c8c5ff22596__MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></a></p>
<div style="border-width:medium medium medium 1.5pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">seem that the proposal attempts to practically create a new operator order than ICANN (re: PTI)
<span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">MM: But the PTI is just ICANN’s current IANA department, is it not?</span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div>Well not for the free standing version. Nevertheless i guess the major point is that PTI is not just looking to become a department as we have presently, but rather an entity with its own board. Do we really need such level of management over 12 staff members that are merely operating on existing set of instructions.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><div style="border-width:medium medium medium 1.5pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt"><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">being the operator and turns ICANN to a "policy only" organisation. That seem like a major change in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) mission and purpose.<span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">MM: Not really, because the current IANA contract requires a significant level of separation.</span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div>I am not sure i get the distinction you are making here. The way i understand it, the contract is what makes ICANN operate IANA, and if by transition there will be a new board (irrespective of where it sits) that oversight on IANA, what would you say has happened to ICANN mission in that context? Maybe i should paste here the role of the "community board" for reference as i think its beyond a mere procedural oversight currently performed by NTIA:<br><ul><li>Oversight of the IANA team, operations </li><li>Addressing escalation issues from IANA customers, i.e those with MOUs with Post Transition IANA. </li><li>Responsible for ensuring funding for operations</li><li>Budget approval for Post Transition IANA</li></ul>Implementing the above in practice would mean ICANN is now a policy making organisation and a new IANA operator has emerged. That was not its main purpose from day 0, its purpose is to operate IANA.<br></div><div></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><div style="border-width:medium medium medium 1.5pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt"><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">How will this work with ccTLDs who for instance are practically engaging with ICANN just because it is the IANA operator?
<span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">MM: It should make them very happy, because they can deal with IANA directly and independently and not through the medium of ICANN’s
gTLD policy making morass</span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div>Well i doubt what is being proposed will lack some form of medium as well, will leave that for the CCs to determine. Perhaps its good to note that it seem you are implying that implementation of PTI will remove need for some existing internal procedures. I just hope i am wrong on that assumption; if there is something wrong with the current medium, then the process should be reviewed and corrected which is largely within the scope of the CCWG not that of the CWG.<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><div style="border-width:medium medium medium 1.5pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt"><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">how about existing gTLD contracts which were signed with the intent of ICANN being the operator?<span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">MM: If IANA is a subsidiary of ICANN this is not an issue; if it is not the modifications required are minor as long as IANA is contractually
bound to implement legitimately passed ICANN policies. IANA is an ancillary aspect of the registry agreement; it is referenced only once regarding emergency transition and in the final convenants where ICANN agrees to implement RZF changes within 7 days of
request. I don’t see how that would be difficult to transfer that obligation to an SLA negotiated with the new IANA.
</span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div>Well that does not remove the fact that those registries signed an agreement with ICANN as the IANA operator. Maybe i am the one seeing this differently so i will try to illustrate; a typical registry A enters into agreement with ICANN to oversee operation of its TLD, the registry does that based on the fact that it recognises that ICANN as the operator would execute what it has agreed upon. ICANN in this context is the board and if that is changing then it may require a change in contract writeup. Unless ICANN board, recognises that it is responsible for the "community board" which could mean exercising some form of oversight on it. <br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><div style="border-width:medium medium medium 1.5pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt"><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">Looking at the proposal, how do we achieve accountability of the "community board"? i mean why should one be comfortable that the "community board" will be more accountable than the current ICANN board?
<span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">MM: That’s easy. In part, because it is directly accountable to IANA customers. And also because (I think) the functions contract
could be transferred to someone else. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>Do you mean there is going to be a contract somewhere; between who and who? ICANN and PTI? PTI and registries? <br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Overall, the intent of maintaining the current separation (i.e IANA being a department) will be good. However it does not have to be achieved through creation of new structures. Creating multiple structures may not necessarily guarantee accountability, it may actually worsen it OR at least slow down processes which may not be good in ensuring stable, efficient and secure domain system. It may be good to task the CCWG to ensure current ICANN board's accountability once and for all.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"></div><div class="gmail_extra">Regards<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><font color="#888888"><blockquote style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex;font-family:garamond,serif">
<i><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Seun Ojedeji,<br style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Federal University Oye-Ekiti<br style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">web: </span><a href="http://www.fuoye.edu.ng" target="_blank">http://www.fuoye.edu.ng</a><br>
<span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Mobile: <a value="+2348035233535">+2348035233535</a></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><br></i><i><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">alt email:<a href="http://goog_1872880453" target="_blank"> </a><a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng</a></span></i><br><br><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The key to understanding is humility - my view !<br></blockquote></blockquote></font><br></div></div>
</div></div>