[Chapter-delegates] SEEKING INPUTS} US Department of Commerce IANA Further Notice of Inquiry

[Christopher Wilkinson]

Dear Markus:

 > We plan to prepare a response and would be grateful for your input.

Thankyou for inviting additional comments on this question. I trust  
that a further iteration of NTIA's proposals will be fruitful.
As you may recall, my comments on this matter have been made, and  
referenced in the NTIA's document at:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-1099-01/attachments/NTIA_IANA_NOI_2.pdf

Please let me know should you need any further advice on my part. I do  
not plan to make any additional personal statement to NTIA about IANA  
in this context.

Regarding vertical integration in the Registry/Registrar market, which  
I gather is also still at issue, my point of view has also been  
published by ICANN at:

>  http://forum.icann.org/lists/vi-pdp-initial-report/pdfFZQIl7H2Er.pdf

Regards,

Christopher


On 19 Jun 2011, at 06:17, Markus Kummer wrote:

> Dear Chapter Delegates and Members,
>
> You may already have looked at the IANA Functions Further Notice of  
> Inquiry (FNOI), which was officially published on 14 June 2011.  The  
> document is being made available through NTIA's website: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/FR_IANA_FurtherNOI_06102011.pdf
>
> NTIA is seeking public comment on a draft statement of work (Draft  
> SOW), which will be part of the procurement process for the new IANA  
> functions contract. Comments are due within 45 days after publication.
>
> We plan to prepare a response and would be grateful for your input.  
> Any comments received by 5 July will be considered and, to the  
> extent possible, incorporated in a first draft. We will of course  
> give you an opportunity to comment on the draft before submitting it  
> to NTIA.
>
> You may recall that among other things we had suggested in our  
> response to the original NOI that:
> - the US government should not under any circumstances expand the  
> scope of the IANA function contract or their role in it;
> - there is a desire to gradually increase independence from the USG;
> - the roles of the IETF, IAB, RIRs, and ccTLD operators should be  
> recognized in the system without implying US government control over  
> them;
> - there is a need to build international confidence in how the IANA  
> function is operated and administered;
> - there should be increased predictability for the IANA contractor  
> by moving away from short-term contracts to a more stable instrument.
>
> It may be of interest to you that Lawrence Strickling, Assistant  
> Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator,  
> commented on the FNOI at last Tuesday’s INET in New York on the very  
> day it was published. He summed it up as follows:
>
> Quote: First, we propose a functional separation between DNS policy  
> making wherever it occurs at ICANN or elsewhere in the actual  
> execution of tasks associated with the IANA functions.
>
> Second, we propose enhanced transparency and accountability through  
> the development of documentation processes as well as performance  
> standards and metrics to establish service levels.
>
> Third, we propose that the contractor needs to include documentation  
> that demonstrates how proposed new top level domain strings have  
> received consensus support from relevant stakeholders and are  
> supported by the global public interest. Unquote
>
> Below are some of the key elements contained in the FNOI in more  
> detail:
>
> The FNOI makes it clear “that it is not in discussions with ICANN to  
> transition the IANA functions nor does the agency intend to  
> undertake such discussions.” It also states that “NTIA does not have  
> the legal authority to enter into a cooperative agreement with any  
> organization, including ICANN, for the performance of the IANA  
> functions.”
>
> NTIA envisages a one year extension of the contract and makes the  
> following comments in this regard: “NTIA does not view the  
> previously awarded IANA functions contracts as short-term contracts.  
> Typical contracts are for one year, while the previous IANA  
> functions contracts had terms, once options were exercised, of five  
> years.”
>
> On the documentation processes, mentioned by Assistant Secretary  
> Strickling, the SOW “requires the contractor, in consultation with  
> all relevant stakeholders, to develop a process for documenting the  
> source of the policies and procedures and how it has applied the  
> relevant policies and procedures in processing all TLD requests (…)  
> For delegation requests for new generic TLDS (gTLDs), the Contractor  
> shall include documentation to demonstrate how the proposed string  
> has received consensus support from relevant stakeholders and is  
> supported by the global public interest. In addition, “the IANA  
> functions contractor should document its decision making with  
> respect to relevant national laws of the jurisdiction which the TLD  
> registry serves, how the TLD reflects community consensus among  
> relevant stakeholders and/or is supported by the global public  
> interest.”
>
> The SOW proposes automating the root zone management process and  
> considers this a priority. It requires that “the contractor generate  
> a monthly audit report to track each root zone change request and  
> include the identification of the policy under which the changes  
> were made.”
>
> Furthermore, NTIA will “require the Contractor to designate a  
> Director of Security and consult with NTIA on  any changes in this  
> critical position. During the procurement process, NTIA will also  
> require the identification of this key personnel and a demonstration  
> of their qualifications for the position prior to contract award.”
>
> Lastly, it is proposed that the contractor undergoes an annual  
> security audit by an external, independent specialized compliance  
> auditor against relevant international standards.
>
> Assistant Secretary Strickling’s speech at the INET gives some  
> insight into the thinking behind the FNOI. He made it clear that the  
> US is fully supportive of the multistakeholder ICANN model, but he  
> also identified some questions that needed to be addressed, first  
> and foremost the recommendations proposed by the accountability and  
> transparency review team. He said in this regard: “But the question  
> now is whether the ICANN board and management have the discipline  
> and willpower to embrace and implement these recommendations in a  
> serious and meaningful way. (…) A second challenge facing ICANN in  
> Singapore is finding a way to adequately address the collective  
> concerns of governments as expressed through the government advisory  
> committee regarding the expansion of the generic top level domain  
> names."
>
> The full transcript of his speech can be read at:
> http://isoc-ny.org/inet/transcripts/INETNY6_strickling.txt
>
> The FNOI will need to be carefully analyzed. While some of our  
> concerns with regard to enhancing the transparency of all processes  
> are addressed and the roles of key institutions are recognized, some  
> key points are not met, such as the demand for a more stable and  
> long-term instrument. There are also a number of questions with  
> regard to the documentation processes. Does this mean the USG  
> reserves a right to veto ICANN board decisions if they fail to  
> “reflect community consensus among relevant stakeholders and/or is  
> supported by the global public interest”? Also, the proposed NTIA  
> involvement in the hiring of the IANA Security Director signals an  
> expanded USG role, which would be contrary to what we had hoped for.
>
> It is our intention to comment on the FNOI in the light of the key  
> points we had made in our first submission. We look forward to your  
> input into the discussion.
>
> Best regards
> - Markus
>
>
> Markus Kummer	
> Vice President, Public Policy
> Internet Society, Geneva
> Email: kummer at isoc.org		
> www.isoc.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20110619/a3dd008e/attachment.htm>