David,

Was travelling and sorry I was not able to answer this sooner. The legal affiliate model of IANA has to be seen as a middle ground between two extremes that are not capable of achieving consensus.

While everyone recognizes the need to separate policy making from implementation (and in fact such a requirement to keep IANA employees out of the policy process was written into the NTIA contract), a wholly independent IANA seems to scare people, because they are afraid it might be captured by someone who wants to use it to circumvent or block bottom up policy developed in ICANN.

A wholly ICANN-controlled IANA was equally scary to many because a permanent monopoly on the IANA functions would likely make ICANN unresponsive to its primary customers/direct users, and more able to abuse or circumvent the policy process itself.

Legal separation into a new “Post Transition IANA” (PTI) gives us some of the benefits of separation and enhanced severability without the risks of complete independence. For example, if IANA is a separate entity, it is easier for the names community to “fire” its IANA functions operator, whereas if it were completely entangled with ICANN that would be much more difficult. The PTI proposal also contains a periodic review process that can lead to an RFP for a new operator. Legal separation focuses management accountability on the PTI and its board, rather than relying on the ICANN board, which has much broader, more diffuse responsibilities.

The key issue is the composition and independent of the Post-Transition IANA board. An independent board, coupled with an independent review team, will mean that PTI is not just a passive creature of the ICANN. I would agree that if the board of PTI is merely appointed by ICANN staff/board, then the point of separation is lost.  And since the composition of the PTI board is still open, I hope that NCSG members will understand the need to push for an independent PTI board that contains IETF and RIR representatives as well as naming community representatives.

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Post
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 11:27 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Public Comments on IANA proposal

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      
*******************************