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

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

On 11/12/2014 06:28, Greg Shatan wrote:
> 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
> <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
>     [mailto: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.
>
>  

OCL: The NTIA announcement of 14 March 2014 mentions the "intent to
transition key Internet domain name functions to the global
multistakeholder community". There is no mention of the intent to
transition the functions to only the IANA's direct customers.


>     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.  

OCL: my point is that in my opinion the challenges in working out the
details of the CWG's first draft and making them implementable are
equally as complex as developing a solution that involves accountability
mechanisms. Another CCWG is specifically tasked with this. I am
repeatedly surprised that there is more faith in the CWG's proposal
which introduces a multitude of unknown unknowns as far as
accountability is concerned, than in a process that involves a
strengthening of ICANN's accountability. Is there really so much
distrust about ICANN? Also - please do not equate this paragraph to a
defense of ICANN on my part. I have serious concerns about ICANN's
accountability. I think a number of things need to be fixed. But having
seen how new entities get set-up with all of the best intentions in the
world and then go rogue after a few years, I would be happier with a
solution that fixes an animal that we already know inside out.

Warmest regards,

Olivier

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141211/e767b6c9/attachment-0001.html>