[CWG-Stewardship] RySG IANA Statement

Tue Mar 24 13:45:10 UTC 2015

Stephanie and all other RySG members

I agree with many of the key points made in the statement, but I find the tone of the statement rather defensive. It is as if you are assuming that most other stakeholder groups disagree with everything the registries are saying, when in fact there are major areas of agreement with other groups.  As a case in point, I and several other NCSG members have always maintained that the CSC should be registry-focused and not a reproduction of the policy making community.

I found this statement in particular to be vague and not very helpful:

"Duplicative and complicated structures that are currently under discussion are not suitable to achieve a satisfactory IANA service."

There are about 6 or 7 different models under discussion. Are you saying that ALL of them are duplicative and complicated? If you are not saying that, you need to specify WHICH ones you consider duplicative and complicated.

We are on fundamentally common ground however when you say

"Another concern is that an overly complex oversight model could erode the bright line between IANA's technical operations and the ICANN policy functions, by exposing these narrow technical functions to undue risk of capture and interference. IANA must not become a political tool as a result of the transition. As it is today, oversight of the IANA functions should appropriately remain technical and operational and any policy issues should be addressed within the appropriate ICANN policy-making body."

Some of the proposals on the table are focused on strengthening the (currently NOT so bright) line between IANA and ICANN policy functions. Can you explain to me why your statement seems to dismiss these proposals?

Finally, I hope that the Registry SG, by reiterating the old saw that they are happy with the current performance of the IANA functions, does not think that that implies nothing needs to be done. Satisfactory performance now is in many ways a product of NTIA oversight and the possibility of re-contracting. Satisfactory performance now does not mean that performance will always be satisfactory once that oversight goes away. Thus the transition has to set up new IANA oversight and accountability mechanisms to substitute for the absence of the NTIA. One would think the registries, of all people, would understand this.

Thus, when the statement says that "Any discussion of accountability issues" - ANY discussion! - is restricted to the CCWG, it is not only wrong, it is contradicting what your own stakeholder group members said in the ICG. Registry stakeholders were instrumental in inserting into the ICG's charter the idea that CCWG and CWG processes were "interdependent and interrelated" so I'd like to know what accounts for this sudden change. Of course, we need to carefully distinguish between the accountability of IANA and the accountability of ICANN's policy making process, but it is not clear to me that whoever wrote this statement understands that distinction.

--MM

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Duchesneau, Stephanie
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 10:26 AM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] RySG IANA Statement

Hi All,

With the face-to-face meeting coming up the gTLD Registry participants in the CWG have taken the opportunity to identify shared positions on the IANA Stewardship Transition and the current work of the CWG, and to solicit wider feedback from the RySG.

The attached statement was prepared by gTLD members participating in this working group with input and support from the wider Registries Stakeholder Group. Though no formal vote was taken, all feedback received was constructive and supportive of the statement. It is meant as a follow-on to the RySG comments provided on the Draft IANA proposal, taking into account additional work and developments since December.

We hope you'll take the time to review the statement in advance of the Istanbul meeting and that it provides useful clarity into concerns and recommendations of gTLD Registry representatives participating in this work.

Please do not hesitate to raise any questions or responses.

Best, and safe travels to all heading to Istanbul.

Stephanie

Stephanie Duchesneau
Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040  Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
________________________________
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150324/a4bee433/attachment.html>