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

[Vint Cerf]

i like very much patrik's analysis. It will be useful to try to flesh this
out by working out specific examples to see what they look like.

vint




On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se> wrote:

>
> On 30 mar 2014, at 13:49, Patrick Ryan <patrickryan at google.com> wrote:
>
> A question: does “structural separation” require that a wholly separate
> entity be formed, or is it an INZ version of structural separation with
> separate subsidiaries under the same parent be acceptable? If so, couldn’t
> appropriate expectations be set in the various bylaws of the parent and the
> subs that would prevent the change at the whim of the Board?
>
>
> I think so. Together with some accountability structure that (as Vint and
> others have said multiple times) remove the ability for us relying on one
> and only one entity doing oversight. There could be for example more
> strengthened accountability ties between the organisations being
> responsible for the various PDPs that create the policies that IANA operate.
>
> Remember what this is about, and I now will quote a few things I think are
> wrong in the description of the ianaxfer mailing list and in the initial
> mail by Kathy:
>
> First this:
>
> NTIA has asked ICANN to convene a process to plan the transition of the
> IANA functions to a global multistakeholder model.
>
>
> Not really how I interpret what is asked for. Instead it is about the
> stewardship of the IANA functions, the oversight. If that has implications
> on IANA operations, that is for me a different question.
>
> This process presents an opportunity for stakeholders to consider, discuss
> and forge agreements on a number of important issues concerning roles,
> responsibilities and accountability mechanisms for the continued deployment
> and evolution of a global, robust and trusted Internet.
>
>
> I think this is a bit too much. That elephant is not to be digested so
> easily, and if this is what we are to do, we will not be done with the task
> that the community is asked to address.
>
> The formulation below is offered as a starting point, in what I hope will
> be an active, robust discussion as we forge consensus on a true
> multistakeholder approach to the administration of the technical functions
> of the Internet.
>
>
> Is the view of ISOC really that the current administration of the
> technical functions of the Internet (whatever that is) is not
> multistakeholder? If so, what other pieces than the oversight of IANA is
> not? I.e. I want to know what problem we should try to solve.
>
> An initial proposal:
>
> In order to ensure global acceptance and affirmation of ICANN's role as
> administrator of the IANA functions, we are now pursuing the transition of
> USG's stewardship of the IANA functions from the USG to ICANN.
>
>
> Much better than the text above. But what concerns me is that the two
> texts differ in tone.
>
>
> Now, most of the proposals I have seen do separate the oversight from the
> operation, and that is also what the IAB description (earlier 3x3, now 4x3
> scheme) talks about. Also the more fruitful (from my point of view)
> discussions last week at ICANN49 we separated the oversight from the actual
> operations.
>
> A suggestion:
>
> Can we start by looking at the following:
>
> - We have the operations by ICANN of the IANA functions we have today
> - We have the operations by other parties (like Verisign) that we have
> today
>
> Question then ends up being: how can we ensure we get a good oversight
> over those functions, while still having the freedom of having the
> functions potentially moving around between various entities?
>
> Should we have one oversight body?
>
> Should we have multiple bodies that ensure each piece of the puzzle works?
>
> Should we have a mesh of affirmations of accountability, which includes
> measures to be used if accountability is not met?
>
> I think personally one could think of a model where we have the various
> responsibilities layered:
>
> A. Primary layer:
>
> A.1. ICANN (as the party running the IANA function) signs an AOC with each
> body that asks for IANA services.
> A.2. ICANN to be able to provide the service required signs whatever
> AOC/MOU/Contract needed with Verisign and whoever else that have to be
> involved, so that ICANN can deliver whatever it promises under A.1.
>
> B. Secondary layer:
>
> B.1. ICANN signs whatever paperwork with the parties that for example uses
> the parameters that are allocated according to the policies set up under
> category A.
>
> C. Tertiary layer:
>
> C.1. Anyone can get to understand and promises from ICANN as the operator
> that ICANN lives up to whatever commitment ICANN promises the community.
>
> That way, at least via A.1 and B.1 we get a mesh of accountability
> agreements that should ensure that things works.
>
>    Patrik
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140330/03d89d52/attachment.htm>