[CWG-Stewardship] My concerns with the draft proposal and an alternative option

[Alan Greenberg]

At 02/12/2014 11:55 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>A response to Alan regarding Malcolm's "treatise":
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > I see a lot about ICANN accountability. I see very little regarding
> > ensuring that ICANN, as the contractee for the IANA function, must do
> > to ensure that it carries out the IANA functions as specified I the
> > contract (the current or future one).
>
>Not correct. See Malcolm's first core issue:
>"1. To ensure the ongoing effectiveness of IANA as an 'executing' 
>(i.e. non-policymaking) entity, including such issues as ensuring 
>its operational performance, adherence to procedure, and the 
>execution of its responsibilities in a manner that preserves the 
>operational stability and resilience of the DNS structure within its 
>purview, and maintains their security."

I am in complete agreement on the need for all this, but I asked what 
accountability measures need to be in place to ensure it. Apparently 
it is working now and presumably most or all of this will be in the 
contractual terms that ICANN will need to adhere to.


> > With respect to OUR task, the NTIA is withdrawing from issuing the
> > IANA contract. They have also indicated that they will get out of the
> > other aspects of Internet management, in particular the Verisign root-
> > zone maintenance agreement and the oversight of ICANN as the co-
> > signer of the Affirmation of Commitments. Neither of these two is
> > within our scope. The latter is certainly something that will need to be
> > considered (in my mind) by the Accountability CCWG in its Track 2.
> > All of your concerns seem to fall in that area, and not in Track 1, those
> > changes required for the IANA transition.
>
>I agree that Malcolm's 2nd and 3rd "core issues" largely fall into 
>the remit of the Accountability CCWG. However, whether they are part 
>of Track 1 or Track 2 (i.e., need to be done before or after the 
>IANA transition, respectively) remains open.
>
>If we have a contracted IANA that is separable from ICANN, 
>periodically renewed, and if the MRT is authorized to make the kind 
>of mission creep about which Malcolm is justifiably concerned the 
>basis for non-renewal, then I think our transition plan will allay 
>most if not all of the need for Track 1 changes.
>
>On the other hand if we have a non-contracted IANA, imperfectly 
>separable or not separable, or one not regularly or periodically 
>renewed, then virtually all of what Malcom talks about must go into 
>Track 1, as far as I am concerned.

The premise in my original question to Malcolm was "presuming that 
the current CWG proposal goes forward".

Alan

>--MM