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

Thu Dec 18 16:14:59 UTC 2014

Hello Jordan,

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>> 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.
>

I am not talking about those agreements between ICANN and
registrars/registries. I was more of using gTLD to explain the fact that
ICANN is the organisation for gTLD and one the role it does for names is
RZM which is part of IANA function. ICANN is not the organisation for
numbers neither is it for protocols and that is why there is a need for
them to have an agreement going forward because the service its providing
to them needs to be formalised.

> 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.
>

Again this is not what i am saying. This CWG is to transition the
rights/accountability (stewardship) of NTIA to multi-stakeholder, there is
NO organisation called multistakeholder however we know of multistakeholder
communities. How else do you then transfer that if not through providing
mechanisms that makes the operator accountable to the multistakeholder
community.

>
> 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.
>

This is where i think there may be mis-understanding, it does not make any
sense to argue that ICANN(as an organisation) should own the stewardship,
but it does makes sense to ensure that ICANN (as a community) is exercising
the oversight on ICANN (as an organisation). So when we (ALAC members) say
"internal to ICANN" we are saying implementation of mechanism within ICANN
that empowers the community. Empowerment is not just circled around moving
IANA, its circled around seeing a problem, and determining solution through
bottom up process and ensuring those solutions are implemented. So more of
the exercising will be about fixing.

> 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.
>

Lets both think through that route; we need to transition to
multistakeholder so what is the "outside multistakeholder" you are
referring to? what do you also define as "outside" in that context?. The
present CWG proposal for instance intends to setup a new organisation that
will solely use the resources of the present operator (both the community
and the funds) to operate, so how have you justified outside? except that
you have just tried to go to Kenya from Nigeria using Emirates airline (why
not Kenya airways)

> 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.
>

The other point is that we/you ONLY see stewardship as ability to move IANA
and so circle all your options around that. This should not be the case,
stewardship is series of accountability mechanisms and moving IANA is just
1 aspect of it. So the CWG is indeed looking for accountability just that
its only concerned about those related to names of IANA functions for
example reviewing budget relating to ICANN globalization may not be within
our scope but the budget of IANA maintenance is, also the source of IANA
operation instruction is within our scope.

>
> I think we now can see where we are talking about different things...
>
> I don't think so, but you may point me to what i may have missed

> So I ask a question - if you want to put stewardship inside ICANN, can you
> explain why?
>
> Again stewardship are rights enabled by processes, if its not incorporated
into ICANN (organisation and community) then there is no other way to
effectively reflect it other than to continue the current status quo which
is basically having another NTIA like organisation (in all its
independence) awarding the contracts

Regards

> <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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141218/1b20ce24/attachment.html>