[discuss] Dear ICANN - Feedback

Tue Apr 15 01:37:02 UTC 2014

Ian,

I'm not George, but I think I understand his question. Sadly, I'm one of those "technical people," so I may be even more puzzled than he is.

Since the IANA functions *are* technical functions, I'm somewhat confused as to what decision making is left for the "business, governmental, and civil society representatives who don't attend ICANN/technical community meetings" when you've declared that the day-to-day operations of IANA are not interesting to you and can be left to the "technical community" committee ICANN is already proposing.

The only specific thing I can find in this thread that you've said you're interested in is *who* performs the stewardship of these technical functions. But I'm not sure why you're interested, given that you're not interested in the technical functions of IANA. So I'm asking a couple of questions here.

Do you think the scope of this "everyone but the technical community" effort would be "oversight" of the IETF's or the RIRs' policy processes for providing direction to IANA? "Oversight" of ICANN's decisions and processes about what goes into the root zone? "Oversight" of decision-making in other aspects of IANA's or ICANN's work? 

In the course of this discussion on-and-off over many years, it seems that often when people talk about "IANA", they really mean the policy processes around the part of IANA generally referred to as "Root Zone Management," which is quite specific to a very small set of technical activities but is closely coupled with ICANN's most prominent policy activity by far. If that's the case here, it makes sense for us to be clear about it.

In particular, I can agree it makes sense to keep any effort to revisit ICANN's policy activities around the contents of the DNS root separate from those technical functions that don't interest you (but are nonetheless fairly important to the actual functioning and growth of the Internet). In fact I think that's been one of the things we've largely agreed on, even when disagreeing in significant ways over other aspects of the issues at hand.

Is DNS root zone policy (what names go into the DNS root, operating rules for registries) what you intended as the scope of this wider effort to provide a plan for oversight?

If not, I admit I'm still puzzled. It's not immediately obvious to me what's left to provide "oversight" *for* if it's not the IANA technical functions and it's not root zone policy.

thanks,
Suzanne

On Apr 14, 2014, at 8:14 PM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> whatever, George...
> 
> Remove the word evolution if it doesnt work for you. My main point here (speaking to you as an ICANN director) is that you must involve the community who don't attend ICANN /technical community meetings in decision making here - including business, governmental, and civil society representatives (and yes we could spend the next five years deciding how to select them or just do it). As you already have a committee of 24 - close to an unworkable size, and with a wider agenda it would seem - I am suggesting a separate group to consider the specific "oversight"  issue from a more focussed stakeholder perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: George Sadowsky
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:09 AM
> To: Peter Ian
> Cc: ianatransition at icann.org ; discuss at 1net.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] Dear ICANN - Feedback
> 
> Ian,
> 
> I’m trying to get away from the generalities that may sound nice but don’t help us to get at ways of leveraging change.
> 
> Are you suggesting a committee to “examine how this function evolves,” the function being ticking the box?  I had thought that we were looking at ways in which this function could be acceptably transferred.  Thjat’s a necessary condition, and it may be sufficient.
> 
> When you talk about evolution, that’s an entirely different matter.  What is your time frame for this evolution?  20 years?  If so, the internet will be a very different place, and I would question anyone’s ability to predict what the management and governance issues would be at that time.  So I have the following follow-up questions:
> 
> 1. Why are you concerned about evolution rather than focusing on transfer?
> 
> 2. Are there any boundaries on your consideration of such evolution?  If so, what are they, and how do they contribute to solving the current problem, i.e. a transition of the IANA function away from the US Government, based upon the constraints laid out by NTIA?  If not, why is this not just futuristic intellectual exercise that will not contribute to the current discussion?
> 
> 3. What would the terms of reference of the committee be?  What expertise would the committee have to have in order that its recommendations would be consistent with the current continuation of stable, secure, and resilient Internet functioning?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> George
> 
> 
> On Apr 13, 2014, at 9:45 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