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

[Greg Shatan]

I just want to add a few points to Milton's response, since he (thankfully)
said much of what I would have said (and more besides).



On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Olivier MJ
> Crepin-Leblond
>
>   I would say that this has already been demonstrated in the making up of
> the ICG and the current CWG, both of which include non ICANN participants
> from the global multistakeholder community.
>
> MM: Hello Olivier. Both the ICG and this CWG have been empowered by an
> external entity – the NTIA. It was the NTIA that kicked off the process by
> signaling its willingness to let go. It was NTIA that told ICANN to convene
> but not control the process. It was the NTIA that set the parameters and
> basic criteria a transition proposal had to meet. It is the NTIA, and the
> US government more broadly, that will ultimately determine whether the
> proposals we develop will be implemented. To look at these processes as
> outgrowths of processes internal to ICANN is to be fundamentally out of
> touch with what is going on here. As Jordan Carter pointed out in a message
> a few minutes ago, given the concessions we had to wring out of ICANN to
> make these processes as independent as they are, it is evident that these
> examples you hold up would have been very different had they been internal
> to ICANN.
>
GSS: The ICG is definitely not "internal-to-ICANN."  Here is #3 of the
ICG's FAQs:

 Is the ICG part of ICANN?
No. The ICG is an independent coordination group that has been established
as a result of a broad community consultation and in response to the NTIA's
announcement. The ICG is conducting its work in an open, transparent and
independent manner. The ICG will be providing its report to the community
broadly. Moreover, the ICG has issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to
select a suitable neutral and independent contractor to perform its
secretariat function
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-09-09-en>. The role of the
secretariat is strictly limited to the functions that support the ICG, and
will report exclusively to the ICG, its Chair or Vice-Chair(s).

>  Similarly, I would point out that a totally independent MRT that does
> not make use of ICANN's existing structures as a convenor would be missing
> a coordinated Governmental involvement. Indeed, only ICANN has the ability
> to make use of its members to relate back to the GAC and for the GAC to
> express points. A totally independent MRT would have individual governments
> speaking. Of course, individual governments were able to speak outside of
> ICANN at, say ITU meetings or at NetMundial - but they were not restricted
> to a handful of seats for the whole world.
>
> MM: The MRT _*will*_ make use of ICANN’s institutionalized
> representational structures. No one who has thought seriously about the
> composition of the MRT has proposed anything different from that. The GNSO
> SGs will be putting people on to the MRT, so will the ccNSO, so will the
> GAC, so will SSAC, so will ALAC. So will entities outside of ICANN. But it
> will be independent of ICANN legally, which as Greg explained is essential.
>
GSS: As stated above, the ICG is not part of ICANN, yet it makes use of
ICANN's structures (including the GAC), so your statement doesn't hold
water.  The MRT can be set up in a similar fashion.

>  MM: As a sideline, I am a bit disturbed by the special emphasis you are
> placing on governmental involvement. Outside of their jurisdiction,
> Governments’ only claim to involvement in ICANN is as one of many voices in
> the policy development process. I do hope you, and all ALAC members,
> understand that the IANA functions contractor is not a policy making
> institution, nor is it supposed to be a vehicle for circumventing or
> vetoing policy.
>
> MM: When it comes to the IANA functions, we do not need governments
> “speaking,” collectively or individually, about implementation. We need
> them in their role as ccTLD administrators, in which case they are just
> another IANA customer. Insofar as they are indirectly affected by the IANA
> functions, they are just another internet user stakeholder group – no
> different from or more important than noncommercial organizations or
> business users. There is no legitimate reason to afford governments a
> special collective voice in the MRT. Even in the terms of the Tunis Agenda,
> a document written by and for governments, IANA qualifies as “day to day
> technical and operational matters” and thus as something to be left to the
> private sector.
>


>  At this stage, I could use exactly the same wording about the current
> CWG first draft, replacing "other than to be 'internal-to-ICANN" with
> "other than to be separable from ICANN".
>
GSS: This is a false equivalency.  You are comparing a five-line
three-sentence paragraph -- about which nothing is known other than those
few words -- with an entire section in the proposal which has been worked
out and debated and amplified and clarified through hours of meetings and
phone calls and hundreds of emails.

>  MM: The rationale for separability has been explained countless times.
> It is an accountability measure, a way of giving the community the most
> meaningful form of redress in case the functions are abused or not
> performed well. Moreover, the IANA functions have always been under a
> contractual relationship. The burden of proof is on those who would say
> IANA functions should be perpetually locked in to one corporation. And I
> completely agree with Greg on this question: we hear your discomfort with
> Contract Co but we have no idea what positive value you are seeking to
> advance by opposing it, other than to keep everything within ICANN.
>
> Clearly we have some work ahead of us to make either proposal, or a mix,
> workable.
>
> There will be and can be no mix; either ICANN owns IANA or it is
> contracted. I think there is work to be done on this plan, but have seen no
> serious challenges to its inherent workability. On the other hand, the
> workability of an internal to ICANN option is lying in a heap of rubble at
> the bottom of Greg’s last message.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141211/0e4f4c2a/attachment-0001.html>