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

Mon Mar 31 07:51:30 PDT 2014

Vint,
Indeed, some of the ccTLDs do that - they seek for some agreement with 
ICANN. This is all public information, and the agreements can be found 
here: http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/cctlds

One may notice that the form of the agreements have changed through the 
years.

On 03/31/14 05:42, Vint Cerf wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto:patrik at frobbit.se>> wrote:
>
>>     On 31 mar 2014, at 03:57, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>>     On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 10:22 PM, Patrik Fältström
>>>     <patrik at frobbit.se <mailto:patrik at frobbit.se>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>         On 30 mar 2014, at 13:49, Patrick Ryan
>>>         <patrickryan at google.com <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-- 

Best,
Veni Markovski
http://www.veni.com
https://www.facebook.com/venimarkovski
https://twitter.com/veni

The opinions expressed above are those of the
author, not of any organizations, associated
with or related to him in any given way.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140331/8e9ceaff/attachment.htm>