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

Mon Mar 31 06:53:39 PDT 2014

I believe that it is correct allowing ccTLDs keeping their autonomy and own
rules of operation in each country. Thus, ICANN keep also the argument that
each country has sovereignty in its own territory but the all the rest of
gTLDs are out of the sovereignty of the countries and they should be managed
by ICANN rules.  

Hector

Héctor Ariel Manoff

Vitale, Manoff & Feilbogen

Viamonte 1145 10º Piso

C1053ABW Buenos Aires

República Argentina

Te: (54-11) 4371-6100

Fax: (54-11) 4371-6365

E-mail:  <mailto:amanoff at vmf.com.ar> amanoff at vmf.com.ar

Web:  <http://www.vmf.com.ar> http://www.vmf.com.ar

De: chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org
[mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] En nombre de Steve
Crocker
Enviado el: lunes, 31 de marzo de 2014 5:23
Para: Patrik Fältström; Seun Ojedeji
CC: Michael Froomkin; internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org;
ianaxfer at elists.isoc.org; ISOC Chapter Delegates
Asunto: Re: [Chapter-delegates] [Internet Policy] [IANAxfer] An initial
proposalregarding IANA development

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140331/a48d585e/attachment.htm>