[governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance

[Thomas Lowenhaupt]

McTim,

Perhaps you can assist me with a question relating to root governance.

  When you say:

    These "decisions" are mainly minor administtrivia.  Changing the IP
    address of a ccTLDs nameserver for example. When it comes to
    deciding what can go in the root, that is clearly now the role of
    the GAC (see GAC Communnique's from Beijing, Durban).

Thinking about our city's application for the .nyc TLD, I've been 
looking at the NTIA-IANA contract, particularly C.2.9.2.d, which says: 
(fromhttp://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf)
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf> 


    C.2.9.2d Delegation and Redelegation of a Generic Top Level Domain
    (gTLD) -- The Contractor shall verify that all requests related to
    the delegation and redelegation of gTLDs are consistent with the
    procedures developed by ICANN. In making a delegation or
    redelegation recommendation, the Contractor must provide
    documentation verifying that ICANN followed its own policy framework
    including _specific documentation demonstrating how the process
    provided the opportunity for input from relevant stakeholders_ and
    was supportive of the global public interest. The Contractor shall
    submit its recommendations to the COR via a Delegationand
    Redelegation Report.

With New York only now considering ways to provide "the opportunity for 
input from relevant stakeholders" I've been seeking guidance from the 
nature of that review by IANA. Last week I wrote to the COR (an NTIA 
official) and IANA asking how those supportive of the .nyc TLD might 
assure that the city's application and outreach efforts meet the input 
requirements (see attachment).

As I understand it, IANA is now a "independent" entity within ICANN. But 
I've been unable to find any detail about the nature of its C.2.9.2.d 
review on its website. Any pointers on this would be greatly appreciated.

And isn't it IANA rather than GAC that decides what goes into the root?

Best,

Tom Lowenhaupt



On 12/1/2013 8:45 AM, McTim wrote:
> Parminder,
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 11:11 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
>     On Saturday 30 November 2013 06:58 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>>     Some concepts are too complex to force them into a single word.
>>     Deirdre
>
>     Deirdre/ All
>
>     Most things in social and political discourse are complex.
>     However, there is always a way to build categories, split issues,
>     and progress in steps , whereby we can certainly talk meaningfully
>     about them and make social and political progress... Such a shared
>     intention is key...
>
>     I think there are two clear issues about 'internationalisation of
>     ICANN'
>
>     1. Its legal status, and the jurisdiction to which it is subject.
>
>     2. The actual role of US-NTIA in authorising every change in the
>     root file.
>
>     It seems that other than the US gov itself, everyone agrees that
>     US-NTIA should be divested of that 'root change authorising' role
>
>
>
> Actually not true.  We have heard on this list that there are 
> governments who are comfortable with this role, but they will only 
> speak of this in private, but that is not who you need to convince.  I 
> think there are a lot of biz folk who are happy with the status quo of 
> #2.
>
>     ..... Then the question comes; (a) should the role then be
>     exercised directly and finally by ICANN itself, or (b) another
>     body to undertake this role (and just this role and nothing else)
>     is needed.
>
>
>
> Actually the question that must precede the above is: "Does this auth 
> role need to be filled".  In other words, can we trust IANA to do 
> their job according to their own processes (which is what NTIA looks at).
>
>
>     A lot of people - including i* group - are of the opinion that (a)
>     above is the best option. Some others think that every significant
>     decision pertaining to a crucial global infrastructure should be
>     subject to a second opinion or confirmation, as a normal prudence,
>     by a body different from the executive authority (ICANN Board).
>
>
>
> These "decisions" are mainly minor administtrivia.  Changing the IP 
> address of a ccTLDs nameserver for example.   When it comes to 
> deciding what can go in the root, that is clearly now the role of the 
> GAC (see GAC Communnique's from Beijing, Durban).
>
>
>     One way would be to have some kind of international oversight
>     board (not necessarily inter-gov) undertaking the same role as
>     undertaken by US-NTIA today. Another way is to allow ICANN to make
>     root changes but all such decisions are post facto reviewed and
>     confirmed by such an international oversight board. ( Whether with
>     a pre facto or post facto role, such an oversight board will
>     exercise its role within clearly set our parameters and rules.) A
>     third way is to only have an appellate board which reviews root
>     change decisions only if an appeal is made to it through a due
>     process.
>
>
> FYI, the ICANN Board ALREADY decides on new gTLDs and redelegations, 
> so adding less important like changes to glue records should be 
> non-controversial.
>
>
>     Therefore, on point 2 above, we can easily agree to ask US-NTIA to
>     shed its oversight role.
>
>
> We can certainly ask.  but they take this responsibility very 
> seriously, so they may not accede to the request.
>
>     What should further be done can be discussed along the above three
>     lines (others may add more options if any)
>
>     Point 1 above is more contentious. Although, in principles, it is
>     easy to assert that a global resource cannot be subject to the
>     jurisdiction of one country and that it should be subject to
>     international jurisdiction. The issue then is; how to form such an
>     international jurisdiction.
>
>
>
> If we can do point #2, then it may be easier to do point #1.  I don't 
> think we should try to do both.  Let's work on continued evolution, 
> not revolution.
>
>
>     Here too, it is easy for us as a civil society group to assert the
>     principle - yes, it is untenable that ICANN continues to be
>     subject to US law and jurisdiction.
>
>
> and Singapore law and Turkish law and the laws of other nations where 
> there are offices.
>
> Karl's point re: contracts is a valid one.  How would you address that?
>
>     ICANN needs to be made subject to international law and jurisdiction.
>
>
>
> Is it not already? Aren't we all?
>
> -- 
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A 
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131201/d08b5b92/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Inquiry regarding section C.2.9.2.d of the IANA contract.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 68509 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131201/d08b5b92/attachment.pdf>
-------------- 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