[discuss] Dear ICANN - Feedback

[Mike Roberts]

Folks - 

We really ought to stop beating around the bush about all this and get the one important question out there and do something to answer it.

For a brief moment in late 98 and early 99, there was only an MOU between the USG and ICANN for all the functions covered in the White Paper.

But ICANN was struggling.  The charismatic leader, Jon Postel, had died. Numerous promises of support for the infant organization were not forthcoming.  International power brokers who had been soothed in the summer by Administration hand holding were restive.  Network Solutions had hired the best lawyers in DC (Wilmer Cutler) and was going to war with USG and ICANN to protect its rights under its Cooperative Agreement as it saw them.  Important callers were asking the White House and the Commerce Department, “what is Plan B if the ICANN privatization scheme fails?”  Long time friends in the community were calling me and asking, “Have you quit yet?”

Plan B emerged as the IANA contract.  Whatever the details said, the real import of the document was to insert the USG explicitly back into the DNS equation as a backstop to the failure of privatization.  If ICANN went into the ditch, for whatever reason or combination of reasons, the whole mess was back in the hands of the government because there really wasn’t any question that the critical functioning of the infrastructure had to be preserved.  No one wanted that, certainly the ICANN Board members and I didn’t want that, but an answer to the “what if” question was necessary, and the IANA contract provided it.

So here we are, fifteen years later and much has changed.  ICANN is financially stable.  Its open and participatory processes have been honed and adjusted over many cycles and are considered by most to be adequate to the DNS policy tasks it is assigned.  A program to broaden and deepen its base of support, which used to be viewed as “collaboration” and is now termed “multistakeholderism,” is in full swing. The registries and registrars, including NetSol/Verisign, function under contracts which have also been honed over several cycles. The long running debate over adding new TLDs has been resolved and new registries are being entered in the root.

The USG is now asking the global DNS community, “are you ready for us and whatever a Plan B might consist of today, to fade back into the woodwork?"  The message to governments is, “after all these years of complaining about our hypocrisy in asserting there is no direct role for governments in ICANN, except for our little IANA contract, are you ready to accept the role and responsibility of it being the GAC that constitutes government involvement in and oversight of the DNS?”

It is quite possible that in the coming months, the community, including the GAC members, will demonstrate that, for whatever wild collection of reasons, the answer to the NTIA question is “No, we are not ready.”   If this is the case, the result is already known.  The status quo will be preserved and the IANA contract will continue.  Some in the US Congress seek that end without waiting for the community to come up with an informed, cogent and actionable proposal.

In my view, my personal view only, and considering the importance which governments, NGO’s, I* orgs, and others directly concerned with Internet infrastructure attach to IANA’s stability and security, the USG has gone considerably further that it might have in issuing an open ended invitation to construct an updated MS structure for the DNS.   So far, the responses on this list and elsewhere are not encouraging. (I commend George Sadowsky for his endless patience in attempting to converge the efforts of this list.)

Joe and Ian made good points today, and impelled me to draft this strong note.  If some of you feel insulted, I’ll understand that.  I used to tell people, when I worked in DC on behalf of the Internet, that the streets of the Capital were littered with great ideas, only a few of which were viable and would ever see the light of day in legislation.  We have that situation with this list.  Many of the ideas promoted are not useful in the context of the specific challenge before us.

The clock is ticking.

- Mike



On Apr 13, 2014, at 6:45 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> George,
> 
> I would not describe it an an operational function myself. Nothing operational is involved. NTIA checks to see that appropriate policies have been followed. And, as you say, ticks the box. Then the change occurs. I don't call that operational, but maybe that is just semantics. Many people call this the "oversight" function, but that is not a good description either.
> 
> In any case, who performs this  previous NTIA role under new structures (if anyone)  is the question of broader interest. Which is why I suggest a committee with wider involvement to examine how this best evolves.
> 
> Your statement below is a little confusing to me, but to be clear I am only suggesting a committee to examine how the function evolves and make recommendations. I am not suggesting a committee to perform the "oversight" function.
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: George Sadowsky
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 11:26 AM
> To: Peter Ian
> Cc: ianatransition at icann.org ; discuss at 1net.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] Dear ICANN - Feedback
> 
> Ian,
> 
> I want to probe your response below somewhat further.
> 
> At the moment, the IANA operational function that NTIA performs is, in the case of any new delegation or redelegation of any entry in the root zone file. NTIA checks to see that the appropriate policies have been followed. If they have, IANA checks the box, and the change occurs.
> 
> Is this the function that you suggest should be delegated to a separate committee involving wider representation from the wider multistakeholder community involving a much wider range of governmental, civil society and business interests?
> 
> If not, could you please be precise in describing exactly which other functions are to be replaced by this wider group?
> 
> George
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 13, 2014, at 8:58 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 
>> Dear ICANN,
>> 
>> You have asked for feedback on your proposal, so here is mine.
>> 
>> Firstly, I now think your Steering Committee is fine for most of your initial tasks. I originally did not, as it is narrowly constricted to the technical community rather than the wider multistakeholder community involved with internet governance issues. However, as I can see from the scattered discussions occurring here and on other lists, there seem to be quite a few people wanting to talk about the minutae of day to day operational matters, and your steering committee will serve to bring some focus and structure to those discussions. I would suggest your first task might be to examine which if any of the current functions, each of which seem to have been performed well for over a decade, might need to be re-examined.
>> 
>> But for most of us, these discussions are beyond our level of interest, and hence you will notice on this list and on others the number of people who have just stopped engaging.
>> 
>> However, there is one issue on which many of us to maintain some interest, and that is the oversight function which was the subject of the NTIA announcement. This has been described as simply clerical, some of us have seen it as largely symbolic, but whatever the reality is, this function has been the subject of contention for over a decade and will continue to be – not so much in the narrow steering committee of the technical groups, but in the wider multistakeholder community involving a much wider range of governmental, civil society and business interests.
>> 
>> Which is where my main suggestion lies. I think you need a separate committee to look at this particular issue, and one which involves representation from wider stakeholder groups not directly associated with the technical community – because, in the end, they will make or break any proposal for change here. I urge you to look at the appropriate way to engage this wider stakeholder group – as well, perhaps you could engage this wider and more representative group with involvement at eg the Internet Governance Forum, a notable absentee from your calendar of events.
>> 
>> One more suggestion and word of caution. There seems to be a prevailing thought that it doesn’t matter how long it takes to resolve this, and if it goes beyond September 2015 so be it. I disagree. If ICANN and associated bodies cannot come up with a structure for a simple governance function in 18 months – a task any government or corporation could do in less than three months – it will be widely perceived as being incapable and inefficient. People will lose patience and begin to look at other alternatives. So I do suggest that you add some firm timelines to your deliberations.
>> 
>> I hope this input is useful to you. I look forward to some more structured discussion in the future, and to a recognition that the sorts of matters largely being discussed here are in many cases not the matters that concern the wider community of interests beyond the technical community. You must structure your activities to engage those wider interests positively.
>> 
>> Ian Peter
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss