[CWG-Stewardship] NTIA's Role in Root Zone Management

[Jordan Carter]

Hi Seun,

On 18 December 2014 at 12:14, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jordan,
>
> Let me make another attempt to clarify my point
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Seun,
>>
>> On 17 December 2014 at 18:21, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I am afraid you're not getting the point. That contractual and
>> organisational separation is very important. It is the *fact* of that
>> separation between entities and managing relationships by contract that
>> allows us all to feel comfortable.
>>
>
> I think you are mis-understanding my point which is that gTLD at the
> moment ONLY has its home in ICANN. Yes contractual approach is currently
> been used for gTLD because there is no sense of strong accountability
> within the organisation. If there is then need to continue the contractual
> route it can ONLY work in the manner currently being used i.e an entirely
> independent organisation (like the RIR, IETF, ccTLD, NTIA) makes a service
> agreement with the operator. However as we have now identified the need to
> transition oversight to multistakeholder, that can ONLY be effective by
> implementing mechanism within an organisation that allows the
> multistakholder community feel somewhat in charge.
>

We are talking about entirely different things.

There is no linkage at all between the ICANN-gTLD contracts and the two
contracts I am talking about.

The ICANN-gTLD contracts are because the gTLDs are an ICANN creation.
Neither their existence, nor the absence of contracts between ccTLDs and
ICANN, has anything to do with the questions we are dealing with here.

All we are dealing with is whether ICANN should own the stewardship of the
IANA functions, or whether an organisation outside ICANN has that
stewardship. In my opinion it should be outside ICANN, because an inside
ICANN solution makes it next to impossible to ensure that a necessary
change of IANA operator will be achievable.

You *cannot* have ICANN as steward and an equivalence of accountability to
today, no matter what you do in the -accountability CCWG or in terms of
improving ICANN accountability.

I think we now can see where we are talking about different things...

So I ask a question - if you want to put stewardship inside ICANN, can you
explain why?

<snip>


>
>>>
>>>> Even if ICANN transitions to a more accountable organisation in terms
>>>> of what it does, that doesn't balance out the very far-reaching change you
>>>> seem to have suggested of putting all the pieces in one basket.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The way i understand it, there has always been a basket, just that the
>>> basket gets sighted by another party i.e NTIA (without NTIA changing its
>>> content) before it arrives Verisign who then load the content of the basket
>>> in the store.
>>>
>>
>> What if one person controls the whole process, as you are proposing?
>> That's the nub of my concern.
>>
>> The whole process has always been from one source (i.e the IANA operator)
> so what its important is ensuring that instruction sent from the source is
> as expected. This does not require any external body to look at but require
> internal mechanism that ensure the operator does not send information that
> is not inline with the community's policy (which will largely require the
> bylaw/policy rewording)
>

No. The one source of authority has been NTIA, which has contracts with
ICANN to be the IANA Functions Operator, and with Verisign to be the Root
Zone Maintainer.

You are proposing that the one source of authority be ICANN.

I am saying I disagree, and I am further saying that nowhere have I yet
seen an argument that sets out why consolidating things in one place is a
good idea.

best,
Jordan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141218/b73a162a/attachment.html>