[Chapter-delegates] [Internet Policy] [IANAxfer] An initial proposalregarding IANA development

[Vint Cerf]

Dear Carlos - this gives us a target to work on. thanks

vint



On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 8:58 PM, "Carlos Raúl G." <carlosraulg at gmail.com>wrote:

> Vint,
>
> As part of my experience in ATRT2, there is quite good accountability and
> transparency on the policy development process (if you help GAC along),
> there could be a little more on the compliance side (ccTLDs in particular),
> but there is little or no recourse beyond the level of the same Board that
> approves the policy.
>
> I share the idea that no new entities are needed, just some clearer
> separation between a) policy, b) compliance and c) operations for the
> benefit of clarity for a wider public.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> +506 8335 2487
> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>
> El 27/03/2014, a las 18:31, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> escribió:
>
> i think it is quite conceivable that no new institution is needed - what
> is required is a process by which ICANN delivers on transparency and
> accountability processes (note plural). When issues arise, there should be
> recourse mechanisms and options in place. We have some, now, but I think
> they could use some refinement and strengthening.
>
> vint
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 8:28 PM, "Carlos Raúl G." <carlosraulg at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Then it's only about a separate/different oversight, I would guess?
>>
>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>> +506 8335 2487
>> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>>
>> El 27/03/2014, a las 18:26, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> escribió:
>>
>> there is already separation within ICANN. IANA is isolated from
>> policymaking practices.
>>
>> vint
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 4:14 PM, ICT Barrett <ictbarrett at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> I think there should be a separation as IANA performs their function
>>> well and the stability of the internet from an infrastructure point of view
>>> shouldn't get affected by the policy making process ( taking note that once
>>> policy is decided it would impact on operations ). But I don't this we
>>> should mess with IANAs technical operational processes now.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Kerry-Ann
>>>
>>> > On Mar 28, 2014, at 12:37 AM, Tamer Rizk <trizk at inficron.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > All these suggestions are great, but I think we need greater
>>> organization of and visibility into community consensus on the diverse
>>> opinions voiced here. After all, we are an Internet savvy community, and
>>> what better way to effectively discuss the governance of the Internet than
>>> by automating consensus using the Internet?
>>> >
>>> > Is there any capacity to automatically export the conversations within
>>> these lists using something like:
>>> >
>>> > https://github.com/fdietz/jwz_threading
>>> > and/or
>>> > http://www.mailpiler.org
>>> >
>>> > to an online comment voting system similar to Reddit, such that
>>> consensus floats to the top? Given the open source tools available, doing
>>> so should take a programmer a focused week and would be extremely
>>> beneficial to facilitating the conversation on transition.
>>> >
>>> > This is, by definition, enabling the process by which to create the
>>> process.
>>> >
>>> > Tamer
>>> >
>>> > John More wrote:
>>> >> I would suggest that in general, it is better to have a separation of
>>> roles since the technical an clerical sector made need to have oversight
>>> and from the policy-making sector.
>>> >>
>>> >> John More
>>> >>
>>> >>> On Mar 27, 2014, at 7:37 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Carlos refers to a possible spin-off of the IANA function.  Indeed,
>>> some
>>> >>> take the view that there should be structural separation of the
>>> policy
>>> >>> making role currently performed by ICANN, and the technical and
>>> clerical
>>> >>> operational role performed by IANA, see for example:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/18/structural-separation-a-key-p
>>> >>> rinciple-of-iana-globalization/
>>> >>>
>>> >>> How do people on this list feel about that?  Should there be
>>> structural
>>> >>> separation, or not?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Best,
>>> >>> Richard
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>>> >>> From: internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org
>>> >>> [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org]On Behalf Of Carlos
>>> Raúl
>>> >>> Gutiérrez
>>> >>> Sent: mercredi, 26. mars 2014 23:00
>>> >>> To: CW Mail
>>> >>> Cc: ISOC Chapter Delegates; internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org;
>>> >>> ianaxfer at elists.isoc.org
>>> >>> Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] [Chapter-delegates] An initial
>>> >>> proposalregarding IANA development
>>> >>> Importance: High
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Z
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Christopher,
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I really like the general message and the integrated approach you are
>>> >>> looking for. The problem right now is not only the number of ongoing
>>> lists,
>>> >>> meetings, etc., but I liked it very much so here my first very
>>> positive
>>> >>> reaction and comments to your valuable ideas:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> From my limited experience of almost 3 years in GAC and one grueling
>>> year in
>>> >>> ICANNs ATRT2, I certainly think that we cannot go on thinking in
>>> terms of
>>> >>> marginal improvements and changes. But we have to start somewhere
>>> and the
>>> >>> IANA is as good as any starting point to start and I strongly hope
>>> it does
>>> >>> not get slowed down by other imperfections in the Ecosystem.
>>> >>> Independently of the IANA horizon, it makes a lot of sense to to
>>> give more
>>> >>> responsibility to RIRs and registries, if they only had some common
>>> >>> accountability and transparency standards. They don´t need to be the
>>> same
>>> >>> standards< as ICANN´s, but they should be high, common to all of
>>> them, and
>>> >>> widely discussed and agreed to by the community (as opposed to be
>>> imposed in
>>> >>> AoC type of agreements). Today they really miss the mark, which is
>>> worrisome
>>> >>> since they are clearly and more or less closely linked to the for
>>> profit
>>> >>> segment. Our apter has made a submission to Net Mundial in this
>>> direction
>>> >>> ICANN certainly is a process based entity, that could be analyzed and
>>> >>> organized differently as the business has grown so much. The fist
>>> step was
>>> >>> to create a subsidiary for the gTLD program. The second is the
>>> probable
>>> >>> spin-off of the IANA function. From whats left, the bottom-up policy
>>> >>> development process could be more clearly separated from
>>> implementation, as
>>> >>> far as the compliancy of Registries and registrars go. But again we
>>> have
>>> >>> different standards for gTLDs as compared to ccTLDs, to give just
>>> another
>>> >>> example- But such an exercise require carefully moderated workshops
>>> at
>>> >>> least, no just brainstorming in mailing lists. And yes, it should go
>>> hand in
>>> >>> hand with the globalization of the IANA function but under its own
>>> charter.
>>> >>> I also think it sounds like an excellent role for ISOC, if it wasn´t
>>> so busy
>>> >>> with other issues than the purely technical ones (IETF, IAB) like
>>> the IGF
>>> >>> getting more teeth in recommendations, and having an arms length
>>> relation
>>> >>> with an, albeit non-profit, still an important Registry hoping to
>>> play also
>>> >>> a novel role in the gTLD space (which I fully support by the way).
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The whole I* has to do and deliver a lot of thinking. Montevideo was
>>> a great
>>> >>> first step. In my eyes more important a milestone than the now
>>> hotter IANA
>>> >>> issue. But it also has to jointly define a (MONTEVIDEO LIKE) space
>>> for this
>>> >>> high level rethinking and avoid starting a competition to the already
>>> >>> crowded ongoing high level panel and meetings competition. Moreover,
>>> ISOC
>>> >>> should guarantee a WIDER participation of the non/technical,
>>> non/commercial
>>> >>> and no/governmental community in such a STRUCTURED space over time.
>>> And I’m
>>> >>> sure many new good ideas would come out of this efforts.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Best regards
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> email: crg at isoc-cr.org
>>> >>> Skype: carlos.raulg
>>> >>> +506 8335 2487 (cel)
>>> >>> +506 4000 2000 (home)
>>> >>> +506 2290 3678 (fax)
>>> >>> _____________________
>>> >>> Apartado 1571-1000
>>> >>> San Jose, COSTA RICA
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> El 26/03/2014, a las 12:29, CW Mail <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu>
>>> escribió:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Good afternoon:
>>> >>> Further to Kathy Brown's messages of 22 and 23 March, I would like
>>> to make a
>>> >>> few comments and suggestions as to how the IANA 'globalisation' might
>>> >>> proceed, and what could be the role of the Internet Soceity. These
>>> are born
>>> >>> of a certain experience in several capacities in relation to Internet
>>> >>> Governance and ICANN since the 1990's and from more recent
>>> observations.
>>> >>> The NTIA announcement and the ISOC staff 'initial proposal' do imply
>>> that
>>> >>> the globalisation of IANA should take place within the
>>> multistakeholder
>>> >>> context of ICANN. That would indeed appear to be the only viable
>>> direction
>>> >>> to go, but it comes with several constraints and conditions. It is
>>> also a
>>> >>> 'case to be made': that option is by no means universally held.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ICANN itself needs a thorough reformation, particularly with regard
>>> to the
>>> >>> balance of power within the 'bottom-up' multistakeholder policy
>>> development
>>> >>> process. If the logical unity of the ICANN and IANA roles is to be
>>> >>> maintained, then ICANN itself has to be credible as the global
>>> custodian of
>>> >>> the Internet Naming and Addressing system and related policies.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> At present that is quite a stretch, not least because of the
>>> unsatisfactory
>>> >>> nature of the decisions leading up to the on-going new gTLD process
>>> and the
>>> >>> resulting controversies.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Consequently, the reform of ICANN and the IANA transfer will have to
>>> take
>>> >>> place hand-in-hand. Not least because – other than among the
>>> commercially
>>> >>> financed operators – there are too few resources and not enough
>>> voluntary
>>> >>> time to conduct two or more parallel reform processes. Furthermore,
>>> it must
>>> >>> be clear from the start that the IANA transfer relates to the whole
>>> of the
>>> >>> IANA-related functions, including the root zone management functions.
>>> >>> Otherwise from an international point of view, the game is not worth
>>> the
>>> >>> candle.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Counter proposals already emanating from the IGP and InternetNZ
>>> envisage
>>> >>> creating additional 'entities' in the name of 'structural
>>> separation' of
>>> >>> ICANN and IANA. They also rather down-play the oversight role of the
>>> GAC.
>>> >>> That would be quite unrealistic.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Furthermore, the IGP proposal would envisage the IANA function
>>> controlled by
>>> >>> a new entity “DNSA” which would be dominated by the Registries and
>>> >>> Registrars. This idea has a precedent. In 2009, the Technology Policy
>>> >>> Institute was already arguing that ICANN itself should be controlled
>>> by the
>>> >>> contracting parties, i.e. The Registries and Registrars. That would
>>> >>> evidently deny the multistakeholder structure which must remain open
>>> to all
>>> >>> stakeholders, including users' interests.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> However, recent experience with the new gTLD programme strongly
>>> suggests
>>> >>> that the influence of the Registries and Registrars within ICANN is
>>> already
>>> >>> too great and that other stakeholders, including governments, have
>>> not been
>>> >>> able to exercise effective counter-vailing power.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The idea of confiding IANA to a separate entity without effective
>>> oversight
>>> >>> and controlled by commercially interested parties, is unlikely to
>>> enjoy
>>> >>> consensus.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> In conclusion, recognising that these reforms will continue over an
>>> extended
>>> >>> period, it is essential that the Internet Society itself ensures
>>> that it
>>> >>> does support a fully multistakeholder process both internally and
>>> >>> externally. ISOC could contribute effectively to rebalancing
>>> representation
>>> >>> of user interests and civil society, on a permanent basis,
>>> particularly
>>> >>> through Chapters' membership, in several relevant fora, including
>>> the IGF,
>>> >>> MAG, ICANN and NETmundial.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Regards
>>> >>> Christopher Wilkinson
>>> >>> On 22 Mar 2014, at 11:39, Kathy Brown <brown at isoc.org> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically
>>> subscribed
>>> >>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet
>>> Society
>>> >>> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>>> >>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>>> >>> https://portal.isoc.org/
>>> >>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>>> >>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>>> >>> https://portal.isoc.org/
>>> >>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> IANAxfer mailing list
>>> >> IANAxfer at elists.isoc.org
>>> >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>>> > please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>>> > https://portal.isoc.org/
>>> > Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>>> https://portal.isoc.org/
>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>> https://portal.isoc.org/
>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140327/11ccdaff/attachment.htm>