[governance] "Oversight"

[John Curran]

On Jun 9, 2012, at 1:23 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> My proposal is clear in not seeking any significant technical changes 
>> in the system, or perhaps even any change at all. So I dont know why 
>> this engineering/ working code and financial argument keeps on coming 
>> in when we are speaking of just the oversight model, largely the role 
>> that US gov plays at the moment.
> 
> Hi Parminder
> How do you propose to convince the US government to agree to giving
> this role out of their hands?

For clarity, which USG "oversight role" are we referring to?

 1) USG, via DoC/NTIA, as the issuer of the IANA Functions contract?

 2) USG, via DoC/NTIA, as a signatory to the ICANN Affirmation of Commitments?

"Oversight role" could easily refer to #1 or #2, but there is nothing in 
theory that precludes another country from also signing an Affirmation of 
Commitments with ICANN and participating in the required reviews.  With
respect to role #1, I've attached an earlier email to this list which
outlines one potential evolutionary path towards that outcome.

FYI,
/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.  Many email messages look alike; remember to 
check headers before removing.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org>
> Subject: Re: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4
> Date: October 25, 2011 7:20:38 AM EDT
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org>
> 
> On Oct 25, 2011, at 7:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> 
>> Probably either....
>> 
>>> On Oct 25, 2011, at 2:20 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 1. As you say, US Government deciding to hand over control. As you say,
>>>> fairly unlikely.
>>> 
>>> By "hand over control", what do you mean?  Is this to ICANN or another party?
> 
> It's not inconceivable to phase out the unique USG role. If I had 
> to make this happen, one possible approach would be the following:
> 
> 1) Seek common support among the community that the scope of the
>   IANA Functions contract should not increase at at any time.
>   (Basic principle is to draw a boundary around the situation so 
>   it does not grow while one is working on long-term solution)
> 
> 2) Work to get multiple governments to enter into Affirmation of 
>   Commitments with ICANN.  Ensure that the reviews required by   
>   such agreements are in common with the periodic reviews already 
>   being performed. 
> 
> 3) Presuming ICANN award of the IANA Function resolictation, make
>   use of the initial three year performance period to transition 
>   the IANA function of protocol registration from being directed
>   by the IANA function contract to instead being performed by an
>   independent contract between IAB(ISOC) and ICANN.  Make clear
>   that this task should be omitted in any renewal terms.  While 
>   IAB could easily have any organization do this task, they should
>   voluntarily agree to have ICANN perform it, and in turn agree
>   to utilize ICANN for technical coordination of any assignments
>   which have implications to the DNS or address communities (Yes, 
>   for those familiar with history, this is recreating the "PSO")
> 
> 4) Repeating the principle, the Regional Internet Registries
>   should formalize their relationship with ICANN via contract, 
>   and then with the IAB's endorsement, should make clear that 
>   the task of maintaining the IANA number registry of does not 
>   need to be included in the IANA Function second renewal period 
>   as it is already being provided by ICANN to the community.
> 
> 5) The last step is slightly challenging.  Having worked over the
>   previous 5 years to make sure that the Domain Name portion of 
>   ICANN has a distinct identity which includes all parties with 
>   views on Domain Name policy, this Domain Name Policy group
>   reaches an agreement with the IAB that it will contract with
>   ICANN for root zone operation, and then enters an agreement
>   for ICANN to do so.  It also agrees in turn to utilize ICANN
>   for technical coordination of any DNS matters which may have 
>   implications to the address or Internet protocol communities.
>   Once this contract has been entered, ICANN and its constituent
>   components for technical coordination (IAB, RIRs, Domain Name
>   Policy group) make clear that no renewal of the IANA Functions
>   contract is required at all, and those governments supporting
>   this "refreshed" ICANN model would need to make clear that it
>   must be allowed to stand on its own.
> 
> Folks will note that I have put the IAB(/IETF/ISOC) in a somewhat unique 
> role of having to concur with any changes to the system. This is not 
> because I believe that IAB has unilateral authority in these matters, 
> but do believe that the IAB (as the creator of these Internet identifier 
> spaces via its protocol work) when combined with inclusive multistakeholder 
> policy development organizations using open & transparent processes actually
> do constitute valid consensus authorities if also operating under the ongoing 
> oversight as provided by ICANN (including its GAC and AoC processes.)
> 
> FYI,
> /John
> 
> p.s.  Oh yes, disclaimer time: the above thoughts are solely my own private 
>      views.  They most certainly do not represent any organization whatsoever.  
>      May cause drowsiness.  Do not operate heavy machinery while reading this 
>      email. Past Internet performance is no guide to future performance. Use 
>      caution: email contents may be very hot.


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t