Re: [Internetgovtech] Coordination Group Members for the Transition of NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions

[Suzanne Woolf <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

A few observations….

(No hats. If I volunteer for this activity, which seems unlikely, it will probably be in another capacity.)

On Jun 10, 2014, at 1:50 AM, Patrik Fältström <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Let me add a few suggestions that unfortunately do not make things easier.
> 
> I think you must to some degree in parallell do the following (in no specific order):
> 
> - Appoint people, the timeline for appointment is very aggressive
> - Stay by your view that the steering committee is only coordinating, work is to be done elsewhere
> - Ensure people being appointed understand IAB view on bing coordinator and not more
> - Continue to be "on your toes" regarding pointing out the group should only be coordinating, that the over time shrinking time is not not optimal (the contrary), and other things that might come up

These points are all about vigilance and care for participants in the process, and the level of vigilance it will take to support sound process here (per not only Patrik's remarks, but John's, Andrew's, Eliot's, etc.) is not trivial. A couple of observations about that seem worth reinforcing.

First-- I think that non-participation in this effort is not really an option for the IETF and the IAB, no matter how we feel about ICANN's ability to facilitate distributed work, etc. As a practical reality, the IETF is in some ways the most prominent "customer" of IANA, and the possibility of the end of the IANA functions contract is the biggest thing to happen in this space since ICANN was founded. Staying on the sidelines doesn't even preserve the ability to dissent later (to the contrary in fact). The kind of political challenge involved happens all the time, certainly in any process that's even within shouting distance of anything labeled "internet governance". There's nothing new in participating in a process, working earnestly towards a successful outcome, and still considering the contingency that it might fail. However, taking on all of the perceived ills of ICANN and its administration in this process is also not an option. 

There's a specific task at hand. It can't really be done without the participation of the IETF, and it's in the best interests of the IETF that it be done and that it include the IETF's interests as input.

Leadership is going to be important in keeping the group focused and moving forward (not just moving)-- doing all it has to do and no more.  It does seem to me that participants appointed by the IETF and the IAB are likely to be among the most realistic about what a post-NTIA IANA should look like and the most experienced in forging the kind of consensus that will be needed. The IETF has already started that process internally (draft-iab-iana-framework) and the revised proposal from ICANN for the membership and charter of the Coordination Group incorporates multiple suggestions from the IAB's and ISOC's comments on an earlier draft. There's a lot of room for IETF and IAB participants to influence both process and outcomes.

Presumably IETF and IAB appointees to the coordination group will have backup from other knowledgeable colleagues. They're going to need it.

> - Regarding "elsewhere", create bonds horizontally between IAB and other "affected groups", and do not rely on all communication going through (coming from) ICANN, do ISOC have staff working on these things in very close coordination with IETF?
> - Be prepared to appoint people to elsewhere, where the work is done -- I have no clear indication coordinated work happens outside of ICANN at the moment, but who knows

Discussion of the process, conflicts of interest, standards for transparency and so on are incredibly important to support defensible, high-quality outcomes, but let's not lose sight of the need for outcomes: the deliverable for this group is a proposal, to be given to the US Department of Commerce, for proper stewardship of "the IANA functions" in the event that the US government allows its current contract with ICANN for those functions to end without renewal in late 2015. 

Patrik is right that the specifics are not the remit of the coordination group. The "real work" is to be done by the stakeholder groups. For the IETF and IAB, this seems relatively straightforward, because there's a high degree of clarity about what is involved in doing the protocol parameters work and in proper oversight of it. However, the group is also responsible for coordinating multiple components of an overall proposal, which would entail identifying any gaps and making sure any overlaps are resolved in synthesizing a full proposal that complies with the NTIA guidelines.

Controversy is inevitable, for reasons that have little to do with the IETF and IAB. Per RFC 2860, the IETF is not particularly interested in policy control over domain names, but that's what most of the people who care about IANA and the NTIA contract are concerned about. Most of that conversation belongs in other venues ("ICANN Accountability," ICANN's SOs and ACs, etc.) but keeping it corralled is consistently a challenge.

One way to consider the task at hand: the role of the IETF and the IAB here, along with the TLD operators, root server operators, and the RIRs, is to make sure that the practical realities of what IANA does and what changes a transition plan has to cover are not lost among the policy activities and implications. Not that the policy aspects should (or even can) be locked out of the room, but neither should (or can) the "technical details" for those who will be directly affected if the contemplated changes don't properly assure the reliable execution of the work of IANA.

The IETF and the IAB need to speak clearly and openly for their requirements and priorities, and insist that a proposal for the operation of the IANA functions post-NTIA take those fully into account. It's just that simple. One place to do that is in the IANA framework discussion within the IETF. Another is in the IANA stewardship transition proposal process.

I respectfully suggest we focus here on what steps the IETF and the IAB can take not only to appoint qualified people to the coordination group, but to support their efforts and the IETF's internal process for providing its input to the proposal.


best,
Suzanne