[CWG-Stewardship] Strickling Remarks from 4 December re IANA Transition and Accountability

[Greg Shatan]

Milton,

I agree that this is a key failing of the "internal to ICANN" approach, at
least to the extent that such an approach relies on the success of the
CCWG-Accountability.  This is also a very real concern about the prospects
for real success by the Accountability CCWG.

If there is a viable "internal to ICANN" approach (and I haven't seen one
yet), it has to stand on its own two feet (i.e., be self-sufficient) and
not rely on a "more accountable" ICANN in order to succeed.

Greg



*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*666 Third Avenue **ï** New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> *

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  Greg:
>
> There have been suggestions from several people that we don’t have to
> worry much about accountability or separability when dealing with IANA, we
> can just “fix ICANN” through the CCWG-Accountability. The implication is
> that we can leave IANA in ICANN with no or very weak separability, and make
> sure that its power is not abused through the Accountability process.
>
>
>
> These people are overlooking a critical fact about the
> CCWG-Accountability. And that is that ICANN’s board remains in complete
> control of whatever outcome emerges from that process. The final proposal
> for the IANA transition, on the other hand, is in the hands of the ICG and
> the NTIA, two independent institutions. As ICANN itself wrote, “the Board
> is considering how it can provide assurance to all stakeholders that it
> will seriously consider and respect the recommendations arising out of the
> review.”
>
>
>
> Seriously considering and respecting “recommendations” means in effect
> that we are basically hoping that ICANN will agree to reform itself.
>
>
>
> I hope this fact exposes the key mistake underlying the “internal to
> ICANN” advocates.
>
>
>
> The remarks also clearly recognize that there are two work streams -- IANA
> transition and enhanced ICANN accountability. Not to belabor the obvious
> but we are the "IANA transition" work stream.  Of course, there are
> elements of accountability in our scope as well -- as Strickling refers to
> it, a process that will "result in ICANN’s becoming even more directly
> accountable to the customers of the IANA functions."  It is that type of
> accountability that we have to worry about, and which I believe our
> proposal (while still a work in progress) addresses.  I don't believe that
> there is anything in our proposal that can be categorized as
> "overreaching."  Indeed, I think we have been quite mindful of staying
> within our scope.
>
> I'm not sure what you are driving at -- do you want us to take on the task
> of enhancing ICANN's accountability beyond the IANA function?  This would
> be massively "overreaching." Or do you want us not to deal with
> accountability at all, leaving it to the CCWG-Accountability to handle all
> elements of accountability, with the result that ICANN would then somehow
> be "safe" for an "internal to ICANN" IANA transition?  I think this would
> be "underreaching." It also assumes that the only thing standing between us
> and an "internal to ICANN" IANA transition is enhanced ICANN
> accountability; I do not think this is the case.  I think there is a need
> for IANA-specific accountability regardless of the overall state of ICANN
> accountability, and I think our proposal meets that need.
>
> In any event, we can neither grab the entire accountability mandate or
> leave it all to the CCWG-Accountability.  Rather, we need to deal with the
> elements of accountability that fall within our bailiwick -- as we have
> done all along -- and which are an integral part of satisfying the
> requirement for transition, as it has been all along.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
>
> *666 Third Avenue **ï** New York, NY 10017-5621*
>
> *Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
>
> *Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
>
> *gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*
>
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> *
>
> *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the share Greg, wouldn't this then give us the opportunity to
> rethink the accountability measures we propose to put in place in lieu of
> ICANN's accountability; Since ICANN accountability is a requirement for
> transition then there may be no need for the current overreaching
> transition structure we are proposing.
>
> Cheers!
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On 6 Dec 2014 00:43, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   All:
>
>
>
> I thought that Larry Strickling's remarks at a seminar yesterday would be
> of interest to the group.  Here is the portion of his speech that appears
> germane to our work and that of the CWG-Accountability:
>
>
>
> I will finish up by addressing the challenges and opportunities facing us
> in 2015 with respect to Internet policy.  Our core mission at NTIA is to
> ensure that the Internet remains an engine for economic growth, innovation
> and free expression.
>
> Internationally, the United States has been a vocal advocate of the
> bottom-up, consensus-based approach to Internet governance known as the
> multistakeholder model.
>
> The multistakeholder model has enabled the Internet to develop into an
> engine for innovation, free speech and economic growth.  Under this model,
> all stakeholders, whether they be from industry, civil society, or
> government, come together in an inclusive, transparent, accountable forum
> to make decisions and solve problems.  As the Internet agency, NTIA’s job
> is to strengthen and promote that model.
>
> In 2014, we have seen a growing acceptance of the multistakeholder model
> around the world, but particularly in developing countries.  Earlier this
> year, Brazil hosted the successful NetMundial conference, which brought
> together a wide range of stakeholders including technical experts, civil
> society groups, industry representatives and government officials, all on
> an equal footing with each other.  At this meeting not only did
> participants agree that Internet governance should be built on democratic
> multistakeholder processes,” the entire meeting was a demonstration of the
> open, participative, and consensus-driven governance that has allowed the
> Internet to develop as an unparalleled engine of economic growth and
> innovation.
>
> A month later, a High-Level Panel, headed by the president of Estonia,
> Toomas Ilves released a report once again affirming the power of
> multistakeholder policy development.  The panel said it “recognizes, fully
> supports, and adopts the Internet governance principles produced in the
> NetMundial Statement.”
>
> Most recently, at the International Telecommunication Union’s 2014
> Plenipotentiary conference in Busan, Korea, last month, we saw the fruits
> of all our work to preserve multistakeholder Internet governance.  The
> United States achieved all of its objectives in Busan, including keeping
> the ITU’s work focused on its current mandate and not expanding its role
> into Internet and cybersecurity issues.  The U.S. delegation, led by
> Ambassador Danny Sepulveda, successfully built consensus across nations to
> protect the robust, innovative, multi-stakeholder Internet we enjoy today.
>
> This validation of the multistakeholder model comes at a critical time.
> Last March, NTIA announced its intention to complete the privatization of
> the Internet Domain Name System (DNS), currently managed by the Internet
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).  This process began in
> 1998, when ICANN took over important technical functions related to the
> domain name system, known as the IANA functions, under a contract with
> NTIA.  In our March announcement, NTIA asked ICANN to convene a
> multistakeholder process to develop a proposal to transition the U.S.
> stewardship role over the IANA functions to the international community. We
> did this to ensure that the multistakeholder model for DNS coordination
> continues.
>
> When we announced this transition, we outlined some specific conditions
> that must be addressed before this transition takes place.  First, the
> proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet
> governance, in that it should be developed by the multistakeholder
> community and have broad community support.  More specifically, we will not
> accept a transition proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a
> government-led or intergovernmental organization solution.  Second, the
> proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the
> domain name system.  Third, it must meet the needs and expectations of the
> global customers and partners of the IANA services.  And finally, it must
> maintain the openness of the Internet.
>
> Now that we are eight months past our IANA announcement, it is important
> to take stock of where this transition stands.
>
> We are pleased that the community has responded enthusiastically to our
> call to develop a transition plan that will ensure the stability, security
> and openness of the Internet.  Acting as a facilitator, ICANN announced
> this summer the formation of a group representing more than a dozen
> Internet stakeholder communities that will help develop a transition
> proposal.  As set forth in its charter, the IANA Stewardship Transition
> Coordination Group is “conduct[ing] itself transparently, consult[ing] with
> a broad range of stakeholders, and ensur[ing] that its proposals support
> the security and stability of the IANA functions.”
>
> The community is in the process of developing proposals for the specific
> IANA functions.  Earlier this week, a working group focused on domain names
> released a 100-page proposal for community review and comment.  We expect
> proposals for other of the functions to surface over the next month or so.
> The community hopes to submit its transition proposal to NTIA by the end of
> next July, which would allow us to review the proposal before the current
> contract expires at the end of September 2015.  I want to emphasize that we
> did not set a deadline for this transition.  If for some reason the
> community needs more time, we have the option to extend the current
> contract for up to four years.
>
> ICANN has also launched a process to examine how to ensure it remains
> accountable to the global Internet community.  Specifically, this process
> will examine how ICANN can strengthen its accountability mechanisms to
> address the absence of its historical contractual relationship with NTIA.
> NTIA believes that this accountability process needs to include the stress
> testing of solutions to safeguard against future contingencies such as
> attempts to influence or takeover ICANN functions that are not currently
> possible with the IANA functions contract in place.
>
> The two work streams on the IANA transition and enhanced accountability
> are directly linked and NTIA has repeatedly said that both issues must be
> addressed before any transition takes place.
>
> I am confident that engaging the global Internet community to work out
> these important issues will strengthen the multistakeholder process and
> will result in ICANN’s becoming even more directly accountable to the
> customers of the IANA functions and to the broader Internet community.
>
> Getting the transition right will be a major project for NTIA in 2015.
>
> The full remarks are at:
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-plifcba-telecommunications-policy-regula
>
>
>
> An article about these remarks by Kieren McCarty in the Register is at:
>  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/05/us_government_tells_icann_no_accountability_no_iana/
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/05/us_government_tells_icann_no_accountability_no_iana/>
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>     *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
>
> *666 Third Avenue **ï** New York, NY 10017-5621*
>
> *Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
>
> *Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
>
> *gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*
>
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> *
>
> *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141207/fb8a0191/attachment-0001.html>