hi, for those not on ISOC's transfer email list. anyone want to help me create a list of examples of where > ICANN corporate behave without the benefit of the >> bottom-up policy processes, and even on occasion contrary to those >> bottom-up processes. Steve has asked: > Would you care to provide specifics? cheers. averi -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [IANAxfer] updated model for IANA transition Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:36:05 -0300 From: Steve Crocker <[log in to unmask]> To: Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> CC: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> Would you care to provide specifics? Steve Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 22, 2014, at 7:32 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > >> On 21-Apr-14 16:28, Steve Crocker wrote: >> >> On Apr 21, 2014, at 2:57 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > ... >>> >>> From the perspective of that question we have two things, IETF >>> negotiating with ICANN and trusting the ICANN interface, and the >>> ICANN insiders saying that this interface cannot be trusted without >>> NTIA oversight or an adequate replacement. >> >> ?? I do not understand the latter half of this. What do you mean by >> “ICANN insiders saying that this interface cannot be trusted without >> NTIA oversight or an adequate replacement.”? > > There are a number of people inside the ICANN community, myself among > them, who have seen ICANN corporate behave without the benefit of the > bottom-up policy processes, and even on occasion contrary to those > bottom-up processes. While NTIA's ability to affect ICANN behavior is > limited and not the best mechanism, it is the only real oversight for > ICANN, especially since the bottom-up oversight mechanisms of the AOC > have yet to be proven sufficient. Losing the trust anchor of NTIA means > those that cannot trust ICANN to behave properly as a bottom-up > multistakeholder organization now, will have even less reason to trust > ICANN in the future. > > Given that, there needs to be something to replace this trust anchor > with regard to TLDs. To put is more bluntly. People trust, for the > most part, that NTIA would not let ICANN make changes to the root that > might be in ICANN corporate interests, e.g. arbitrary changes to ccTLD > entries - though if course they are not happy about the national > character of the check and balances. Would that trust be there if ICANN > was able to directly translate ICANN decisions, especially those made > without benefit of bottom-up processes, directly to IANA change orders > without any checks and balances? > >> >>> If IANA is to remain a single entity handling all of the >>> directories that it currently handles we have a conundrum. Some >>> clients, like IETF*, who trust ICANN want to keep the status quo, >>> whereas the status quo is no possible for the TLD clients. TLD >>> Supporting Organizations would need to accept a new situation of a >>> ICANN without NTIA oversight, which some do not trust. >> >> Minor nitpick: For the IETF relationship you’re saying it is possible >> to maintain the status quo but for the TLD operators you’re saying >> it’s (structurally) impossible. >> >> Since the NTIA has not actually taken any actions regarding TLD >> updates to the root for either gTLDs or ccTLDs, in what sense is >> maintenance of the status quo not possible? > > As mentioned before, the trust anchor of checks and balances is lost. > While for the most part NTIA is a pass-through mechanism, it is am > important check and does provide balance and an address for any concerns > that would be gone. > >>> One solution is to split it. IETF can continue to contract with >>> ICANN for its directory services and GNSO and ccNSO can work with >>> an externally accountable IANA oversight entity. >> >> The gTLDs are contracted with ICANN. Are you suggesting the gTLDs >> would somehow modify their contract to insist on some arrangement >> other than the one that exists for updating their entries in the root >> zone? > > no > >> >> >>> I don't think this is optimal, though it is one of the paths >>> explored several years ago by the NTIA comments process. One could >>> ask what business ICANN has running a service for protocol >>> parameter in its scope, but that is another topic for another list >>> on ICANN's scope and mission. >> >> ICANN was purpose-built to operate the IANA function, which includes >> publishing the parameters for the IETF-defined protocols. Perhaps >> the question you might be asking is how NTIA came to be overseeing a >> relationship between the IETF and ICANN without any meaningful way of >> doing so. > > I thought it was purpose built to create policies by which the Assigned > names and number would be governed. But yes, it has also been under > contract to NTIA to provide the TLD directory service. And is also > under 'contract' to other entities, e..g IETF, to provide them services > as well. > >>> If however, IANA is to remain a single entity, which I support, we >>> have to take into the account both IETF being happy with its >>> current service provider contract, and the TLD market not >>> necessarily trusting the situation post NTIA. >> >> As noted above, the gTLDs don’t really have much choice, nor is there >> any indication that they have not been very well served under the >> current arrangement. The ccTLDs share the same root zone, so it >> would be peculiar and perhaps impossible to imagine two distinct >> entities updating the root zone. And, like the gTLDs, they have been >> well served. What protection are you looking for? (More >> properly,what protection are THEY looking for?) > > To start with, a corporate ICANN that functions consistently in > accordance with its bottom-up multistakeholder processes. > >> ... > > avri > _______________________________________________ > IANAxfer mailing list > [log in to unmask] > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer