Thanks, Avri, for your response - very helpful. I understand the point
that there are LOTS of details still to be filled in, so I suppose I can
postpone some of my questions until those are on the
table.
But this arrangement worries me, because in the ordinary sense, a
wholly-owned subsidiary is most definitely not independent of its
parent - in fact, the very opposite is usually true - and I'm just not
aware of a lot of models where something like this actually works to
counter that inherent dependence. Maybe there are such things out
there and I'm just not aware of them, and maybe the right combination of
ICANN and PTI by-law provisions, and contract language, and procedures
for selecting the PTI Board can be devised to give the PTI Board real
independence, and I just haven't seen them yet. But without
independence from the ICANN Board, the possibility that it would ever
actually exercise the "option of creating a
RFP (request for proposal) and possibly finding a new IANA function
operator" (even though its parent corporation and sole Member
(i.e. ICANN) does not want it to do that) strikes me as pretty
slim, and without the ability to do that its not really independent at
all.
David
At 04:51 AM 4/24/2015, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
The original positions in the CWG ranged from maintaining the status quo
to a completely free standng IANA model. The supporters of both of
these options have strong reasons and resolve. We were making no
progress on finding agreement.
A hybrid position was offered after the Singapore meeting,
proposing a shared service held by the 3 operational communities: names,
number and protocols. This offered both legal separation but joint
affiliation with the various operational communities. That could
not be accepted becasue the other communities did not want to take on the
extra repsonsiblity and objected strongly to the Naming commmunity coming
up with a solution that presupposed their participation. So we
ended up coming down to a single member affiliate. Those who
supported the full free standing IANA proposal, mostly, accepted that
having legal separation was a minimum, but could be acceptable as a first
step, with other steps possible in the future if necessary.
Since IANA would be subsidiary to ICANN we are therefore also including
in the model, probably in a fundamental bylaw, a process by which
further separation could be achieved if necessary. This is
described in the proposal. Briefly, the IANA Function Review (IFR)
Team (IFRT) could recommend that there was a problem with the then
current arrangement and recommend that further separation discussions be
initiated. The current proposal is still open on whether at that
point:
- a Cross Community WG, similar to the CWG-IANA or to the ICG (IANA
stewardship transition Coordination Group), would be established to work
on that issue with the option of creating a RFP (request for proposal)
and possibly finding a new IANA function operator.
- the IFR team itself could then begin the work on a RFP and finding a
new IANA Function Operator.
The CWG is looking for community opinion on these alternatives, so if
NCSG has a recommendation, it would be a good thing to offer in our
comments.
In terms of the degree of control that ICANN has of the affiliate, we are
still discussing the degree to which the affiliate will be subject to
ICANN mangement and working for as much independent action as
possible. The contract between ICANN and its affiliate would define
the relationship as well as the requirements on each side. The Post
Transtion IANA (PTI) would have its own largely independent Board.
Devils and details still abound.
avri
(NCSG member on the CWG-IANA)
On 23-Apr-15 11:27, David Post wrote:
Milton/All
I'm sure this was talked about at length during the development of the
proposal, but it does seem rather odd to me that "functional and
legal separation" between the IANA naming functions and ICANN (which
I agree is an important principle) has been implemented in this proposal
by means of setting up a new corporation that is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of ICANN's (with an ICANN-designated Board - sec
III.A.i.b). Can you say a few words as to why you think that
provides for the necessary independence? The PTI Board will be
answerable to the ICANN Board, because ICANN is the only
"member" of PTI - ??
David
The At 10:58 AM 4/23/2015, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Dear NCSG-ers:
The domain names part of the IANA
transition is finally being formed. A draft proposal was released
yesterday and it is open for public comment.
In my view, this is a big win for accountability. By legally separating
the IANA functions operator from ICANN, it will be easier to hold ICANN’s
board and staff accountable for the policy making process, and easier to
hold the post-transition IANA accountable for its performance of the IANA
functions. Lines of responsibility will be more direct, and policy more
clearly separated from implementation.
The proposal also promotes accountability by creating a periodic review
process that could allow the names community to “fire” the existing IANA
if there was great dissatisfaction with its performance. This enhances
the accountability sought by the numbers and protocols communities as
well as creating separability for the names community for the first time.
The legal affiliate structure seems to have found the middle ground in
the debate over ICANN’s role in the IANA functions. Although IANA will
still be a subsidiary of ICANN, Inc., thus defusing any concerns about
creating new organizations, it will have a separate board and a clearer
line of demarcation between the politics of ICANN the policy maker and
the technical coordination functions provided by the IANA functions
operator.
You can read the (very long) proposal here:
https
://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en
You can comment on it here:
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en
*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose)
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
music
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc.
http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose)
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
music
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc.
http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************