David

Let me second Avri's question with the hope of a real answer.  To my mind the fundamental bylaw idea and the IRP idea are both conceptually pretty simple.  They may be complex in implementation but they are otherwise straightforward.

I share your perception that the membership/designator structure of the new community oversight structure is complex, indeed even rococo.  But nobody in the CCWG or on the legal team at Sidley and Adler can think of a simpler way to achieve the objective -- community control.  If you have ideas, we are all ears!!

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
[log in to unmask] 
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key


-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 12:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Ominous update on the IANA transition

Hi,

How do you suggest it be made simpler?

I think most of the people working on designing these solution have been trying to simplify.  What further simplification can be done and still have the checks and balances and paths of redress?  Without resorting to a Deus ex Machina, that is.

avri

On 06-May-15 08:45, David Post wrote:
> At 11:04 AM 5/5/2015, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
>> Isn’t the real problem here that there is no way of knowing, ex 
>> ante, whether the mechanisms will actually work?  I have spent a lot 
>> of time on the IRP and if it works as I hope it will, it would be a 
>> strong bulwark against mission creep – but what if it doesn’t?
>>  
>> Part of me wants to say that the formal transition should be delayed
>> 5 years until ICANN has lived under an implemented transition system 
>> and has adequate experience.  I fear, however, that such a solution 
>> is untenable, politically and practically.  We must, I think, take a 
>> leap (of faith?) … Paul
>
> It's a big problem - there is absolutely no way to know precisely how, 
> e.g., the IRP is actually going work, let alone the whole mechanism.
> The best one can do is making sure it stays as transparent as possible 
> (so that at least we'll be able to figure out how it's working and 
> what's going on in real time) and that there's some kind of reasonable 
> error-correction mechanism so that the scheme can be adjusted (or 
> adjusts itself) over time.
>
> It's also an argument, I think, for simplification - for my money, the 
> whole scheme as it is developing seems vastly over-complicated (as 
> ICANN itself seems vastly over-complicated).  I think that will make 
> it much harder to guard against mission creep and/or other abuses of 
> power down the road.
>
> D.
>
>
>  
>> *From:* David Post [mailto:[log in to unmask] 
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 5, 2015 8:44 AM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: Ominous update on the IANA transition
>>  
>> At 07:17 AM 5/5/2015, Brenden Kuerbis wrote:
>>
>>     Hi, David, 
>>     [SNIP]
>>     On this point, please see the recently released Cross Community
>>     Working Group (CCWG) Accountability Initial Draft Proposal for
>>     Public Comment,Â
>>     
>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-
>> proposal-with-annexes-04may15-en.pdf
>>
>>     Would you agree that the proposed update to ICANN's Mission
>>     Statement (pg 15) which limits ICANN scope, in conjunction with
>>     proposed community empowerment mechanisms address this concern
>>     adequately?
>>
>>
>> Brenden
>>
>> The Mission Statement changes do go a long way to addressing this 
>> concern - so the question becomes: will it actually serve as an 
>> effective constraint on ICANN's powers, or, Soviet 
>> constitution-style, just a bunch of nice words?
>>
>> It's a little too early, for me, to say whether the proposed 
>> community empowerment mechanisms will do the job adequately; the 
>> devil really is in the details, and a lot - everything, actually - 
>> depends on how those details get fleshed out.  The proposal has a lot 
>> of good things in it - the enhanced Independent Review Panel, recall 
>> mechanisms for Directors, community power over the budget - and is a 
>> good step forward, in my view; but there are lots of substantial gaps 
>> and open questions about how it all will actually work [No criticism 
>> at all of the many folks who worked on this is intended, but just as 
>> a statement of fact]. There's a fine line between, say, an IRP that 
>> is effective and one that isn't (as the last 15 years have shown), so 
>> I guess I'm not ready to say it's been adequately addressed quite
>> yet.   
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>>     Â
>>     On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:49 PM, David Post
>>     <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > wrote: 
>>     [Apologies for cross-posting]
>>     This really is starting to look, as Milton said, ominous -
>>     coupled with the pressure being placed upon ICANN to regulate
>>     message content, see 
>>     http://www.internetcommerce.org/senate-judiciary-to-ip-czar/
>>
>>     my take on this is here: 
>>     http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/04/internet-governance-what-if-the-sky-really-is-falling/
>>     
>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/04/i
>> nternet-governance-what-if-the-sky-really-is-falling/>
>>
>>     If the final proposal does not have real safeguards against
>>     ICANN's content-regulation powers, we're all in trouble.
>>
>>     On this point, please see the recently released Cross Community
>>     Working Group (CCWG) Accountability Initial Draft Proposal for
>>     Public Comment,Â
>>     
>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-
>> proposal-with-annexes-04may15-en.pdf
>>
>>     Would you agree that the proposed update to ICANN's Mission
>>     Statement (pg 15) which limits ICANN scope, in conjunction with
>>     proposed community empowerment mechanisms address this concern
>>     adequately?
>>     Â 
>>     And I am starting to wonder whether the USG is interested in
>>     making sure those safeguards are in place, or, as suggested in
>>     the above, making sure that they're NOT in place. . . .
>>
>>     I agree there will continue to be pressure put on ICANN by IP
>>     rightsholders interests, using any available route. But if the
>>     above is adopted it seems it would go a long way toward
>>     mitigating that pressure.
>>     -- Brenden
>>     Â 
>>     David
>>     At 09:27 AM 4/30/2015, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>>         Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
>>         Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  
>>         Dear NCSG: 
>>         It̢۪s now official: l: ICANN doesn̢۪t even want to let
>>         the IETF have a a choice of its IANA functions operator. 
>>         Â 
>>         Those of you who read my blog post on ICANN̢۪s interactions
>>         with the he numbers community
>>         <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/>
>>         will already know that ICANN is refusing to accept the
>>         consensus of the numbers community by recognizing its
>>         contractual right to terminate its IANA functions operator
>>         agreement with ICANN. In that blog, I referred to second-hand
>>         reports that IETF was encountering similar problems with
>>         ICANN. Those reports are now public; the chairs of the IETF,
>>         IAB and IETF Administrative Oversight Committee have sent a
>>         letter to their community
>>         <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html>
>>         noting that ICANN is refusing to renew their supplemental
>>         service level agreement because it includes new provisions
>>         designed to facilitate change in IANA functions operators
>>         should IETF become dissatisfied with ICANN. 
>>         Â 
>>         These are truly shocking moves, because in effect ICANN̢۪s
>>         legal staff is is telling both the numbers and the protocols
>>         communities that they will not accept the proposals for the
>>         IANA transition that they have developed as part of the IANA
>>         Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) process. In both cases,
>>         the proposals were consensus proposals within the affected
>>         communities, and were approved by the ICG as complete and
>>         conformant to the NTIA criteria. Thus, ICANN is in effect
>>         usurping the entire process, setting itself (rather than ICG
>>         and NTIA) as the arbiter of what is an acceptable transition
>>         proposal. 
>>         Â 
>>         The key point of conflict here seems to be the issue of
>>         whether ICANN will have a permanent monopoly on the provision
>>         of IANA functions, or whether each of the affected
>>         communities – names, numbers and protoocols – €“ will have
>>         the right to choose the operator of their global registries.
>>         Separability is explicitly recognized by the Cross community
>>         working group on Names as a principle to guide the
>>         transition, and was also listed as a requirement by the CRISP
>>         team. And the IETF has had an agreement with ICANN giving
>>         them separability since 2000 (RFC 2860
>>         <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860>).  Yet despite the
>>         wishes of the community, ICANN seems to insist on a monopoly
>>         and seems to be exploiting the transition process to get one. 
>>         Â 
>>         Of course, a severable contract for the IANA functions is the
>>         most effective and important form of accountability. If the
>>         users of IANA are locked in to a single provider, it is more
>>         difficult to keep the IANA responsive, efficient and
>>         accountable. Given the implications of these actions for the
>>         accountability CCWG, I hope someone on that list will forward
>>         this message to their list, if someone has not noted this
>>         event already.  
>>         Â 
>>         Milton L Mueller 
>>         Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor 
>>         Syracuse University School of Information Studies 
>>         http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
>>         <http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/> 
>>         Internet Governance Project 
>>         http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/> 
>>         Â
>>
>>       
>>     ******************************* 
>>     David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New
>>     America Foundation 
>>     blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
>>     http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
>>     <http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post> 
>>     book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n   Â
>>     Â Â  <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0> 
>>     music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic
>>     <http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0>publications etc. 
>>     http://www.davidpost.com         <??.htm> 
>>     *******************************
>>
>>
>> *******************************
>> David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America 
>> Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) 
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post>book (Jefferson's
>> Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n      
>> <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0>
>> music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic 
>> <http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0>publications etc.
>> http://www.davidpost.com        
>> <http://www.davidpost.com%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0+/>
>> *******************************
>
> *******************************
> David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America 
> Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post>book (Jefferson's
> Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n     
> <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0>
> music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic 
> <http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic> publications etc.
> http://www.davidpost.com       
> <http://www.davidpost.com%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0/>
> *******************************


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com