Thanks Milton! Are we going to see the first public appearance before Congress of the new CEO this Tuesday??? Please send the link!!!!! Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 22 May 2016, at 15:08, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > Draft letter from Rubio circulating in the Senate today. Leaked. > Not sure by who and don't know who will sign. ICANN in emergency mode > for hearing Tuesday arguing against delay. > > Paul Rosenzweig > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 > www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> > My PGP > Key<http://www.redbranchchttp/redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/> > > > > Dear Assistant Secretary Lawrence E. Strickling, > > We are writing to express our concerns as the National > Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) reviews the > proposal from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > (ICANN) to transfer its role regarding Internet Assigned Number > Authority (IANA) functionality to a global multi-stakeholder > community. > > We commend the work of the current multi-stakeholder community to > develop a transition proposal that would maintain the security, > stability, and resiliency of the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS), > In the absence of the historical role played by the United States in > the IANA functions process, it is important that any new system > enhance accountability and transparency measures to bolster the > multi-stakeholder model and ensure that ICANN continues to meet the > needs and expectations of customers and partners of the IANA services. > > The care and dedication of the community in developing this proposal > is clear and there are many positive aspects to the proposal. However, > the Internet is too important to allow the transition to occur without > certainty that the proposed accountability measures are adequate and > that ICANN's new governance structure works properly. Therefore, we > respectfully request that you consider an extension of the NTIA > contract with ICANN to ensure that the many changes in the transition > proposal are implemented, operate as envisioned, and do not contain > unforeseen problems, oversights, or complications that could undermine > the multi-stakeholder model or threaten the openness, security, > stability, or resiliency of the Internet. > > > The transition proposal would create a radically different governance > structure for ICANN. Specifically, it would establish an "Empowered > Community" that would possess key powers, including dismissal of Board > members and approval or disapproval of bylaw changes, designed to hold > ICANN and the Board accountable. Although promising in theory, this > structure and authority remains untested and it is unclear if the > Empowered Community would actually be able to exercise these powers > with reasonable facility. > > We are also concerned about the expanded role of governments in the > transition proposal. Under the proposal, the Government Advisory > Committee (GAC) would retain its privileged advisory role of being > able to send advice directly to the ICANN Board. However, governments > would also be granted new power and authority that they have never > possessed in ICANN through the full voting participation of the GAC in > the Empowered Community. The integrity of the bottom-up stakeholder > process is one of the pillars of the transition and ICANN must prevent > governments from exercising undue influence over the Internet. We are > concerned that the increased influence of the GAC could be used by > governments to pressure ICANN to act or impede multi-stakeholder > efforts to block actions supported by governments. The IANA > transition should not provide an opportunity for governments to > increase their influence; their role should remain advisory. > > Finally, there are many details of the proposal that have yet to be > developed, much less finalized. For instance, significant transparency > measures have been deferred to "work Stream 2" and will not be > developed or be in place before September 2016. Another outstanding > issue is ICANN's undefined commitment to human rights. We firmly > support human rights, but we are concerned that including this > commitment into the ICANN bylaws could encourage the organization to > adopt decisions or consider activities outside of ICANN's core > competency. There is also the concern that, absent the pressure of the > transition, the commitment of ICANN to these matters could be > weakened. > > Currently, ICANN and Verisign are engaged in a 90 day parallel testing > period of the new IANA process. This test is being conducted > alongside the usual process to make sure that the new technical > process that would be in place after the transition does not result in > errors that could threaten the security, stability, or resiliency of > the DNS. This verification is so important that, if any "unexplained > differences" arise, both ICANN and Verisign have announced that they > would restart the test period. > > The accountability and governance of ICANN is just as important as the > technical and procedural changes of the transition proposal. Indeed, > failings or weaknesses in the accountability mechanisms or governance > structure would pose additional potential challenges to the openness > of the Internet and the multi-stakeholder model. > The new governance model that ICANN will transition to is unproven and > should also undergo parallel testing. Indeed, the ICANN Board itself > suggested last year when considering an early draft of the transition > proposal it would be prudent to delay the transition until the new > governance structure is in place and "ICANN has demonstrated its > experience operating the model and ensuring that the model works in a > stable manner." Although the current proposal is substantially > different than that earlier draft, the radically different governance > structure currently proposed for ICANN should elicit similar caution. > > In finalizing your review of this proposal, we request you consider an > extension of the NTIA contract with ICANN with the goal of ensuring > that the transition establishes a stable system that reinforces the > multi-stakeholder model and does not contain unforeseen problems or > consequences that could jeopardize the security, stability, and > openness of the Internet. > > > Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to > hearing from you