Hi people, Regarding NCUC's (or NCSG's) position regarding the internationalization/globalization of Icann and the transition of the IANA functions, CGI.br has done a contribution to NetMundial (attached), and I highlight some portions which may be relevant to what was discussed in the Policy Committee yesterday and our ongoing discussions on these issues. The proposals from CGI.br, and I quote, "bear on the assumption that ICANN should be the responsible institution within the Internet governance ecosystem for the assignment of names and numbers, including the full spectrum of the IANA functions. CGI.br understands that the maintenance of ICANN as a focal point for those activities is the best alternative for the assurance of a unique and global Internet, for it has the established technical capacity and the policy-making mechanisms that can keep the Internet running without compromising its availability in the furtherance of current global Internet governance discussion fora, such as NetMundial and IGF. It does not mean that ICANN’s operation and its governance system are to remain unchallenged. It simply means that it is better to count on a fully established system to be enhanced than to start a whole system from scratch." Our (CGI.br) vision regarding Icann's internationalization is that the steps so far they have been focused mainly on the operational level of its mandate. "Far more important than those efforts is placing ICANN under a new international legal-institutional framework that replaces the current contract (the Affirmation of Commitments) with the USA government and removes ICANN's direct or indirect subordination to the US legal system. In realistic terms, this goal may be achieved within a 5 to 10 years time frame, following a sequence of steps that are still to be devised, following a roadmap for the international Internet governance ecosystem that is expected as one of the outcomes of multistakeholder fora like NetMundial, IGF, and others." Please note that this contribution has been written before the NTIA announcement, so maybe this decision will impact on the mentioned time frames. CGI.br quotes the example of the coordination in practice of distribution of IP addresses as an input for us to think about the IANA transition. I quote again: "one of the main IANA functions is the global coordination of the allocation and registration of IP addresses. ICANN is still legally responsible for this function, but its practical execution is completely decentralized by the global structure of five different Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). These RIRs have in turn created a coordination forum - the Number Resource Organization (NRO). The RIRs and the NRO coordinate the process of distribution of IPv4 and IPv6 blocks, also taking into account a well designed and consensual strategy for the transition of the number resources. CGI.br strongly believes that this is a very good example of how other IANA functions can be decentralized and delegated, without removing the overall institutional responsibility of ICANN over those functions. It also serves as a very suitable model for the internationalization of IANA functions." Also, and quoting again: "In the search of an adequate legal and institutional framework that replaces the current contract with the US government, it will be extremely relevant to decide which entity, or set of entities, will be made responsible for the management of the root zone file, such as to guarantee its stability, security, and reliability. An adequate direction for that matter can be the assignment of this task to a set of international entities (in a way similar to the RIRs/NRO structure for IP allocation) that are already responsible for other aspects of the Internet governance, that operate in a well-balanced multistakeholder model, and that bear the required technical qualifications." Regarding Robin's very relevant concerns on accountability, this is what CGI.br has to say: "Within democratic political institutions... vertical and horizontal accountability are two different components of overall accountability. Vertical accountability means that each specific organ within the ICANN chart has to be fully accountable to its direct constituents. Horizontal accountability means that, within the ICANN system, every single organ has to be fully accountable to all others as well. And all of the system has to be fully accountable to Internet users in general, in a reliable, open and transparent, and timely manner. How can ICANN, in an international legal and institutional framework different from the AoC and from the current bylaws that guide the corporation, be accountable to the public interest, represented by all end users of the Internet, in a way that is consistent with universally accepted principles of use and governance of the Internet which respect fundamental human rights and promote social, economic, and cultural progress of citizens of all countries?" I think this contribution is reasonably compatible with what NCSG is proposing. Of course we do not agree to any operational entity run by registries to take over IANA, but we believe there may be a structure similar to NRO as described above which could run the other IANA functions under a similar relationship with ICANN. fraternal regards --c.a. On 03/23/2014 10:59 PM, Anandan wrote: > I agree with the Statement which is a good document. > > S.P. Anandan > -------------------------------------------- > On Mon, 24/3/14, Satish Babu <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Subject: Re: new statement on IANA > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Monday, 24 March, 2014, 7:09 AM > > The statement reads > well, and it has my support. I've marked a few minor > suggestions in the document. > > > > > > satish > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Nuno Garcia <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > This is a good document, > congratulations! > > On 23 March 2014 > 19:21, Heather Leson <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > > > Thank you. > > I've reviewed and look forward to the next steps. > > Heather > > > > > > Heather Leson > [log in to unmask] > > > Twitter: HeatherLeson > Blog: textontechs.com > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 > at 2:49 PM, Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > > > > > I am with McTim on this one. > > > > Nicolas > > > > On 2014-03-23 1:47 PM, McTim wrote: > > > It is a perfectly reasonable statement IMO. > > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > Hello everyone, > > > > just to clarify about this statement as NCSG comment on IANA > transition: > > - we had the PC meeting today and discussed about the > statement as was > > requested. we made some changes suggested during the > meeting. > > - this version was circulated by Milton to the NCSG list > with 24 hours for > > comments. > > - after that I will send it on behalf of NCSG to the > concerned parties. > > hope that is much more clear. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2014-03-23 17:51 GMT+09:00 Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]>: > > > Visible here: > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sJ0Fo_4LalYbyRuq4B3X5uf7TySIDq9Mrb3UVByoXIg/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >