At 10:38 AM 4/26/2015, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hi
David wrote:
" 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)
doesnot want it to do that) strikes me as pretty slim, and
without the ability to do that its not really independent at all.
"
SO:
In the current configuration, PTI is not in the position to issue RFP,
it's rather the parent (ICANN) that is in the position to issue RFP based
on the recommendation of IRF team/possible escalation from CSC. The later
which is not yet very clear. So PTI is basically entering the current
shoes of ICANN and ICANN will be entering the shoes of NTIA
post-transition
So nothing, really, in this arrangement serves as a constraint on the
ICANN Board. If ICANN "misbehaves," PTI won't be able to
find a new partner (or terminate its contract with ICANN), but if PTI
misbehaves ICANN will be able to do both of those things. I thought
that one of the virtues of the "Contract Co." approach was
that, with truly independent bodies, each would function as a constraint
on the other, and that seems to have gotten lost here; whatever
constraints there will be on the ICANN Board won't come from the IANA
functions side but through the "accountability" mechanisms, I
suppose.
David
Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 26 Apr 2015 14:20, "David Post"
<[log in to unmask]
> wrote:
- 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
- *******************************
*******************************
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
*******************************