[Chapter-delegates] Reminder - Open comment period from ICANN CCWG for new naming proposal

[CW Mail]

Dear Narelle and others who have posted to the ISOC IANA Chat:

1.	It is important that Post Transition IANA, as a whole, remains anchored with Protocols and Numbering, that is with IETF and the RIRs. There are several reasons for this. ( a ) Open Internet Standards are critical for fair competition and low entry barriers. Governments and Users have an existential interest in the work of IETF. ( b ) Numbering, and particularly communications numbering are of critical interest to public policy. Most governments have accepted with more-or-less good grace that that shall continue to be done for the Internet by the RIRs. However, I believe that in the last resort their ability to comment and advise on numbering policy through ICANN/IANA/GAC is a significant element in their acceptance.

2.	The recent debate within the CWG has clearly revealed support for separation of IANA/Names from the other IANA functions and - if possible  - from ICANN. Whether that has been for ideological or commercial reasons is immaterial at this stage. The present CWG compromise proposal is workable for the time being, but I expect that debate on separation to re-open shortly after the transition, not least on the basis of the proposed array of IANA performance criteria.

As a long-time student and practitioner of industrial economics applied to the information society, let me say that IANA, as a fully privatised commercial service, would become financially  invaluable to its owners.  I do not want to see that happen, ever. The first line of defence is to ensure the continued integration of all IANA functions: Naming, numbering and protocols.
The second line of defence is to make it as difficult as possible to separate IANA from ICANN (as to be reformed under the CCWG Accountability proposals). In the last resort, a 'separate' IANA must be protected as a public service against any form of capture. However, that last resort is not yet credible. There are no safeguards in place, not least because the multistakeholder community has tacitly, if not explicitly, come to the conclusion that we do not wish to reproduce all the checks and balances that ought to be present within ICANN, in the IANA context as well.

3.	Granted, IETF, CRISP/RIRs/CWG have all been working to date within their respective 'silos'. So be it, although the risks were already visible in ICANN 50/London. It is now up to the ICG to make sure that they do not materialise. ICG must ensure that there is no 'poison pill' for post transition IANA arising from the 'separability' debate in CWG.

Regards

CW

On 28 Apr 2015, at 11:04, Narelle Clark <narelle at isoc-au.org.au> wrote:

> All,
> we are entering what may be the final stages of the compilation of the
> proposal for a post-US government stewardship of the IANA functions.
> 
> Like the numbering and protocol parameters groups before them, the
> names community are in the final phases of compiling a proposal for
> that final piece of IANA. Their proposal has gone out for public
> comment, see:
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en
> 
> I therefore encourage you to participate in this community exercise.
> 
> A huge thank you must go to everyone who participated in the proposal
> development for the numbers community (via the CRISP team from the
> RIRs) and the protocol parameters community (via ianaplan from the
> IETF). Those proposals are comprehensive indeed:
> 
> Numbers, ie RIR: https://www.nro.net/news/final-proposal-crisp
> Protocols, ie IETF:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09
> 
> 
> We will be moving into the final phase soon, so I will need people's
> thoughts on the overall system proposal: is it appropriate?
> Have the processes been rigorous and dealt with issues raised within
> standing community processes?
> Are the proposals consistent with each other?
> Will they work together?
> 
> Is anything missing?
> 
> 
> Best regards
> 
> 
> Narelle
> 
> -- 
> 
> Narelle Clark
> ISOC nominee to the IANA Coordination Group
> 
> Immediate Past President and Board Member
> Internet Society of Australia
> narelle at internet.org.au
> www.internet.org.au
> The Internet is for Everyone!
> _______________________________________________
> 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