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

[Vint Cerf]

ICANN mistakenly tried to insist on agreements with ccTLD operators and
that provoked a lot of tension, so Steve's position is consistent with
experience. Personally, I think the ccTLD operators would be wise to seek
such an instrument to reinforce their roles in the operation of the
Internet (and it would also help with cryptographic control of changes to
the root zone).

vint



On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:

> Patrik, Seun, et al,
>
> Here’s a small detail worth thinking about.  Although some ccTLDs have
> agreements with ICANN, many do not.  Further, many ccTLDs are not members
> of the ccNSO, the Supporting Organization that represents the ccTLDs within
> ICANN.  None of this matters when it comes to providing each ccTLD with
> updates to its portion of the root zone.  ICANN serves *every* ccTLD, even
> those that operate in locations the U.S. Government imposes trade
> restrictions.
>
> This is the way it’s been since the inception of ICANN.  I don’t see any
> reason this needs to change.  I would not envision ICANN *requiring* any
> sort of agreement with each of the ccTLDs.  (We have sometimes sought such
> an agreement and may do so in the future, but it will not be a requirement.)
>
> Re the arrangements with Verisign, I would expect the adjustments to be
> only the minimum that’s required.  I would expect their operational role
> and ICANN’s operational re updates and publishing of the root zone and the
> creation and use of DNSSEC keys to remain the same.  It’s the *stewardship*
> not the actual operation that’s the subject of discussion.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 31, 2014, at 4:10 AM, Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se> wrote:
>
> On 31 mar 2014, at 03:57, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 10:22 PM, Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se>wrote:
>
>>
>> On 30 mar 2014, at 13:49, Patrick Ryan <patrickryan at google.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Unless i am forgetting/missing something, I think this part is already
> inplace, and there may be no need to have to repeat the signing
> process(re-call the scope of those who require the IANA service is quite
> broad). The only aspect which perhaps needs to be updated is the
> relationship between ICANN and Verisign (since verisign contract is with
> the USG). So ICANN needs to sign a contract with Verisign (just as he
> already have signed contract with other registries)
>
>
> There is today a cooperative agreement between NTIA and Verisign that
> contain things I do believe are related to the root zone management. Those
> details in that agreement should, I think, be replaced by a contract
> between ICANN and Verisign. This is not these operational actions that
> Verisign do are to be moved elsewhere (to IANA). But if the basis for the
> discussion is to not change operations of the root zone management, then I
> would like to see ICANN take over the pieces of the Cooperative Agreement
> related to the root zone management.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>> I am wondering how this differ from Item A2.1 that you mentioned above?
>
>
> B1 has to do with for example the registries for each TLD be able to get
> an agreement with ICANN. In the same way as each organisation getting any
> other parameter from ICANN (i.e. the RIRs, each entity that have something
> in the IANA registry). This for the protocol parameters have to be
> discussed somewhat more whether it is for example for most of them IAB that
> is the other end of the agreement, ISOC or whether it is really each
> individual. For PEN it could be the organisation. For character sets...
>
>
>
>> C. Tertiary layer:
>>
>> That way, at least via A.1 and B.1 we get a mesh of accountability
>> agreements that should ensure that things works.
>>
>
> Speaking about accountability, i think the bylaw should drive the
> accountability process. The role of the board needs to be reviewed. Now i
> know they always say board members represent the interest of the
> organisation. Yes i agree, however i believe the interest of the
> organisation should be in the bylaw and board should respect such. Now the
> content of the bylaw should respect the PDP of ICANN. It is well know that
> the PDP of ICANN has a bottom up approach hence the community interest is
> represented.
>
> So for me, i think more work needs to be done in reviewing the exiting
> bylaw and ensuring it holds the board members accountable and then the
> board members holds the organisation (in this case the CEO) accountable in
> an open and transparent manner.
>
>
> But to whom are they accountable? I was more thinking of to whom the
> accountability was. But of course you talk about the internal
> implementation of the accountability and that is also important discussion.
>
>    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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140331/81ad59f9/attachment.htm>