Re: [Internetgovtech] an initial proposal wrt IANA developments

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jari,

Thanks for starting the discussion on this.  It's important that we as an
organization understand how the recent NTIA news affects us.
 Unfortunately, I disagree pretty fundamentally with the characterization
in the text below.

The below text seems to suppose or imply that ICANN is changing its
behavior to compensate for the lack of NTIA involvement.  That's just
false.  Or it should be -- since NTIA has had no operational role for a long
time, our multistakeholder processes are not affected by their departure.

I'm not denying that there may be changes over time in how the
multistakeholder organizations work or how they relate to one another.
 Only that these changes are just part of the natural evolution of the
community.  They're not driven by NTIA's decision, so they don't need to be
part of this discussion.
My concern with focusing on change rather than continuity is that it
invites trouble.  Saying that there is a "transition" implies that there is
some vacuum that needs to be filled by somebody.  That just invites other
people to argue that they should get to do NTIA's supposed job (which was
actually nothing).  There's no need for anyone to take on additional
responsibilities

Our focus in any statement should be to reaffirm our current processes --
as we have been executing for years. Any changes are simply to strengthen
those processes, and should have been done irrespective of the NTIA
decision.

--Richard


On 3/20/14 9:59 AM, "Jari Arkko" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>You have all seen the NTIA announcement [1,2]: they want to transition
>their role to multi-stakeholder organisations. And you've seen the common
>statement that was issued by the leaders of the technical Internet
>organisations on this topic [3]: we said that we are committed to further
>strengthening our processes and agreements related to the IANA functions,
>and to building on the existing organizations and their roles.
>
>At the London IETF, we also discussed principles guiding the IETF
>regarding the role and evolution of IANA. After the meeting, Russ posted
>his summary of the principles [4], including, for instance, that we
>believe the protocol parameter registry function has been and continues
>to be capably provided by the Internet technical community.
>
>I am sure similar discussions will be held, for instance, in the RIRs.
>And as you may know, ICANN will facilitate discussion of the evolution,
>starting from their upcoming meeting next week.
>
>From an IETF point of view, I think the principles discussion is what
>primarily guides us. But I also wanted to post something that goes into a
>little bit more into details of what this all might mean in practice. The
>following text is something that a small set of leaders from technical
>Internet organisations wrote as one possible starting point for the
>discussion. Your comments on this would be appreciated. Given the
>situation, given the principles, given the roles of various
>organisations, what specific actions would you like us to take with
>regards to moving the NTIA role to the multi-stakeholder communities?
>
>Jari
>
>[1]
>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transitio
>n-key-internet-domain-name-functions
>[2]
>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/qa_-_iana-for_web_eop.pdf
>[3]
>http://www.nro.net/news/internet-technical-leaders-welcome-iana-globalizat
>ion-progress
>[4]
>http://www.iab.org/mail-archive/web/internetgovtech/current/msg00221.html
>
>-----
>
>Status of the text below: This is something that some leaders of
>technical Internet
>organisations have agreed is a reasonable starting point for discussing
>how the role of
>the USG can be transitioned to the Internet community. It is a starting
>point
>only, and not something that has been agreed by our respective
>communities.
>
>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. The roles of all
>Internet registry policy bodies (such as the RIRs, IAB, IETF, ASO, ccNSO,
>ccTLD ROs, and
>gNSO) stay unchanged. These bodies continue to hold policy authority for
>the
>protocol parameter, number, and name spaces, including responsibility to
>ensure
>the faithful registry implementation according to those policies.
>
>This transition from the USG has been envisaged since the early days of
>ICANN.
>It is now feasible due to the growing maturity of ICANN and other
>organisations
>in the Internet ecosystem. ICANN's structures and accountability
>mechanisms
>continue to evolve and advance guided by the AoC community reviews,
>including
>ATRT. In addition, ICANN will continue to embrace its aggressive roadmap
>to
>truly globalize its structures.
>
>In order to operationalize the transition from USG, ICANN will engage
>with the Internet
>community in a bottom-up public consultation process to ensure appropriate
>accountability mechanisms. In addition, ICANN will work with the names,
>numbers,
>and protocol communities to formalize relationships, commitments, and
>mutual
>responsibilities.
>
>When community stakeholders have input about the policies emanating from
>the
>names, numbers, and protocol communities, they would be directed to
>pursue their
>interests through the relevant Internet communities (such as the gNSO,
>ccNSO, ccTLD ROs,
>ASO, IAB, IETF, or the RIRs) and their mechanisms for consideration and
>potential redress.
>
>The IETF, IAB, and RIRs are committed to open and transparent processes.
>They
>also are committed to the role of ICANN as the IANA protocol parameter
>and IP
>address registry operator. The accountability mechanisms for ICANN's
>administration of these core internet functions will provide escalation
>routes
>that assure the names, numbers, and protocol communities that if IANA's
>performance is lacking, those communities can pursue defined processes for
>improving performance, including pre-agreed independent 3rd party
>arbitration processes.
>
>ICANN reaffirms its commitment to implement all IANA registry functions in
>accordance with the respective policies. ICANN will also provide
>affirmations to
>all stakeholders (including governments) from all Internet registry policy
>bodies and itself that all of us will use open and transparent processes.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Internetgovtech mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech