[Chapter-delegates] [IANAxfer] Update from position zero in the NTIA IANAtransfer of stewardship

[Narelle Clark]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

>
>  ----- Original Message ----- From: Narelle Clark
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 4:04 PM
>
>

>  It was agreed the charter and purpose of the group needs real clarity and
>> agreement and soon.
>>
>
> Indeed.  In my opinion, the charter of this group should be to compile,
> summarize, and present the proposals make to date, and then to call for
> further comment.



Any others have thoughts on this? I'll post over some of the thoughts
people have had and some of where my thinking is, but I want to hear
broadly on this topic.



>
>  The topic of whether the GAC should get three extra members was briefly
>> discussed.
>> It seemed to be the case that there is an argument the GAC should get its
>> five nominees
>> on the basis that should any stakeholder group feel strongly
>> disenfranchised
>>
>
> This seems to assume that the coordination group would make substantive
> decisions, which I don't think it should be doing.  Surely 2 per
> stakeholder group is more than adequate if the charter of the group is to
> summarize public discussions


No decision has been made on this at this stage. It somewhat 'cart before
horse' as the charter needs to be agreed/endorsed before any real
assessment of the number of players needed to perform those tasks.

Also, my statement that 'an argument' exists doesn't mean that it is a
position held by anyone. Merely that it is a recognisable line of logical
thought.



>
>  Reflections for ISOC
>> =================
>> There is also the timeframe issue: what process do we - ISOC - want to
>> use to consult
>> with our members/stakeholders?
>>
>
> I would think so, both through the Chapter Delegates list and the IANAXFER
> list.
>
>
And the Connect platform. The issue here is we have four actual
distribution mechanisms and this cannot be seen as an efficient mechanism.
Do all Chapter-dels want these threads? Do all AC members?

I certainly want the broadest possible input from ISOC, and also to use the
high calibre staff we have to best effect. We have some really seasoned
people on board now in the form of Sally, Olaf and Konstantinos. Not to
mention the rest of the team in gathering and connecting with the community.



>
>  Surely what is needed is this type of process:
>>
>> Definition phase--> Call for proposals--> Consult & Review proposals -->
>> Recommend
>>
>
> Definition phase was already done by NTIA and ICANN, resulting in a
> scoping document.  But that scoping document has been challenged, and
> should, in my opinion, be revised.  This was commented and discussed in
> some detail on the existing mailing lists.
>
> Call for proposals was already sone, many have been presented on the
> exising mailing lists.
>
> Consult and review proposals is indeed, in my opinion, the next step: the
> coordination group should publish a summary of the discussions and
> proposals that have been submitted to the existing mailing lists.
>
>
All good points. These hopefully, in the CG can run through fairly quickly.

However, ISOC hasn't to my mind wrapped its collective thinking aound these
possibilities.

Our role could be more of an oversight and leadership one - what do people
think of this?



> Recommend is the sticking point.  Who should forumulate that?  It seems to
> me that it should be the broad community, not the Coordination Group or the
> ICANN Board.  In the end NTIA will make the decision, but it should decide
> on the basis of input from the broad community.  If there are some
> divergent views within the broad community, the Coordination Group should
> present the divergent views to NTIA.  The ICANN Board would, at that point,
> present its own views and the NTIA would then be in a good position to make
> a decision.
>
>
Indeed. I would hope this whole process could be an exemplary case of
multistakeholder engagement.



> SNIP
>
>
>  In parallel the CG should undertake some risk and governance frameworks
>> to provide some >extra input and checking.
>>
>
> This implies that the Coordination Group would make substantive inputs,
> which explains why the GAC wants more representation.  It may be better if
> the Coordination Group does not make substantive inputs of its own.  That
> is, substantive inputs would come only from the community itself.



My understanding of the proposed role is that the CG should indeed to some
overarching checking/validation. That is to potentially identify missing
parts or risks or... that was my only thinking in that case. Not that it
would make substantive inputs in the sense of creating utterly new
proposoals from scratch - more the application of a comparison or checksum.

The GAC's reasoning is a separate matter from what I see - and it is
possible that some cannot see the CG as anything but a control and
decision-making body. It's just in the DNA for persons that have that
perspective...



 Scope and Charter
>> =================
>>
>> Right now we are in Phase 0 : what is the scope and charter ISOC wants
>> for this group?
>>
>
>
Anyone else?


>
>
>  Does the CG/NISTCG write proposals? Does it make decisions?
>>
>
> Not in my view, except of course to the extent that it summarizes
> proposals made by the community.
>
>
>  What is in scope, and what is out of scope? For what is out of scope,
>> where do those
>> issues go?
>>
>
> The scope includes possible structural separation of the IANA function,
> external accountability for the IANA function, and the relation between
> accountability for the IANA function and accountability for ICANN's other
> functions.
>
>
The structural separation of the IANA function is very controversial. Is it
in the best interests of the Internet? What do others think?



>
>  What is utterly non-negotiable as for scope,
>>
>
> In my opinion, the above.
>
>
>  and what can be lost?
>>
>
>  I hope we can agree that the essential piece is the ongoing reliable
>> function of IANA
>> - the database - in one complete piece
>>
>
> What do you mean by "one complete piece"?  The IANA function comprises the
> maintenance of several unrelated databases, some of which are
> decentralized. In theory, each database could be maintained by a separate
> organizations. That has pros and cons, which should be revisited.



Indeed. What do others think?




>
>  with a set of operational performance parameters.
>>
>
> I think that the first step is to identify the "owners" of each database.
> Those owners are the most qualified people/organizations to define the
> desired operational performance parameters.
>
> For example, I think most would agree that the IEFF/IAB is the "owner" of
> the protocol parameters database, so it should define the desired
> oeprational performance parameters and, in my view, also decide who should
> maintain and administer that database.
>
> SNIP
>
>
>  The IAB and IETF have started by putting together some really solid
>> proposals.
>> Paul Wilson has written a brilliant piece on the IANA functions:
>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140713_breaking_it_down_the_
>> iana_transition_in_practical_pieces/
>>
>
> Paul says " I suggest there should be no change in the location of IANA or
> the operation of its functions, "
>
> This implies that the IANA function would continue to be performed by
> ICANN and that ICANN would continue to be subject to US law.  As I've
> stated on my various postings to the existing lists, I do not agree with
> that.
>
> Paul notes that the MoU between ICANN and the NRO imposes separation of
> functions.  True, but what if a future ICANN Board decides to change that?
> Of course NRO can refuse the changes, but such a situation would create
> confusion and instability.  Better to avoid it by finding a solution such
> that the ICANN Board cannot make such a change, even if a US court order
> attempts to compel it to make such a change.
>
>
I'm keen to hear other people's views on this. Is this view shared?

Is there an argument that the IANA function not be performed by ICANN now
or into the future? Do we really want to have that debate now? In this
context?




>
>  Proposed Agenda
>>
>
> Maybe you could add something explict about preparing a summary of the
> discussions to date?
>
>
You mean by each of the communities? Nice idea. I'll put that back into the
stream, however I doubt it will be ready for tonight's (my time/today
London) meeting.

Next phase perhaps.



-- 



Narelle Clark
President and Board Member
Internet Society of Australia
ph: 0412 297 043
int ph: +61 412 297 043
narelle at isoc-au.org.au <president at isoc-au.org.au>
www.isoc-au.org.au
The Internet is for Everyone!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140717/d3bdc660/attachment.htm>