Re: [Internetgovtech] an initial proposal wrt IANA developments

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jari,

I appreciate that many people have views as to what should happen, going
forward.  However, the text you quote below doesn't seem to me
consistent with the principles that we have been establishing. 

On 3/21/14, 12:59 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:

>
> 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.

The above text should be aligned with principle #5, at least as far as
the IANA parameters are concerned.

>
> 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.

It is beyond feasible.  The job has been and is being done by the
various organizations, generally with good collaboration between them.

>  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.

This sounds very good, but why should this text not be addressed in an
ICANN context?


> 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.

Much of this has already been said by ICANN.

>
> 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.

I like this part, actually.  It seems to form the basis for the notion
that consultation should flow to the communities where the experts are,
and where those who are most impacted are likely to participate.  IMHO
the whole statement should be about this.

>
> 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.

There was general agreement in London that ICANN does a good job for the
IETF managing protocol parameters.  As someone who has worked very
closely with that team, I must agree.  They deserve all the applause we
gave them, and more.  They do this work on our behalf.  As a general
rule, however, I prefer bilateral voluntary agreements rather than
arbitration processes.  That is, the IETF should always control its own
destiny, and arbitration dilutes that autonomy.  The above paragraph
also should be aligned to our principles.
>
> 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.
>

Again, this sounds like an ICANN statement.  A very GOOD ICANN
statement, mind you, but I feel a little funny suggesting changes to
their words as to what they would commit to.  But a thousand blessings
upon their house if they actually say this (I feel confident that they
will, by the way, in some positive form).

Eliot