[discuss] Second draft - proposed Netmundial submission

Sun Mar 2 23:10:47 UTC 2014

Thanks to everyone who has made suggestions about this, both on and off list.

As a result I have made a few changes, as below. I still feel perhaps the best path is for me to submit this as an individual to keep things less complicated, unless there is a strong feeling otherwise. The deadline is March 8.

My main objective here is a roadmap; some simple steps in the right direction that will help to a achieve a good outcome. If this is made too complicated, it will go nowhere. Plenty of time to examine complexities later when we have an agreed path forward. 

Here is my proposed new wording. All comments and suggested improvements welcome.

Ian Peter

DRAFT FOLLOWS

Roadmap (and principles) for internalisation of the former  IANA functions under a multistakeholder governance model involving  ICANN and associated technical organisations.

This roadmap concentrates on one internet governance issue only – the future of the IANA functions which have been the subject of much past discussion because current arrangements are seen by many to be outside of the preferred multistakeholder model.

Indeed, IANA itself was established  in an era before most current internet governance institutions (eg ICANN) were in existence. The emergence of a trusted global body to take over these functions was envisaged at the time and this submission suggests that we can now proceed to transfer remaining functions to a multistakeholder model of management.

ROADMAP

This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions, though necessary processes in the secure and authoritative functioning of the Internet, no longer need a separate identity and would more productively merged with similar functions under the auspices of ICANN and associated technical bodies. Subject of course to many concerns about details, this direction appears to have widespread support from governments, civil society, technical community, and private sector.

In order to achieve this desired change efficiently and productively, the following roadmap is proposed.

1.       ICANN should be requested to prepare a proposal for management of the previous IANA functions within the multistakeholder model of internet governance, including among other considerations the following criteria:

(a) protection of the root zone from political or other improper interference; 

(b) integrity, stability, continuity, security and robustness of the administration of the root zone; 

(c) widespread [international] trust by Internet users in the administration of this function; (d) support of a single unified root zone; and 

(e) agreement regarding an accountability mechanism for this function that is broadly accepted as being in the global public interest."

2. Preparation of the proposal should involve discussion with all major stakeholder groups, with a completion timetable for a first draft for discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Turkey in September 2014.

3. To expedite completion in a timely manner, it is suggested that outside consultants be engaged to prepare the discussion paper (proposal) in consultation with major stakeholders.

4. The solution must have the following characteristics

(a) offers a legal structure that is robust against rogue litigation attacks

(b) is aligned with the Internet technical infrastructure in a way that supports innovative, technology based evolution of the DNS .

(c) is an inclusive model

(d) is a demonstrable improvement on current processes in this area 

END DRAFT

From: Suzanne Woolf 
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 8:52 PM
To: John Curran 
Cc: Ian Peter ; mailto:discuss at 1net.org 
Subject: Re: [discuss] Thoughts welcome on proposed Netmundial submission

On Feb 28, 2014, at 12:00 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:

  On Feb 27, 2014, at 7:32 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

  Ian -

     Very nice writeup...  I have just a couple of comments, which you may use or 
     discard as desired.

     ROADMAP

     This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions, though necessary processes in the secure and authoritative functioning of the Internet, no longer need a separate entity and would more productively merged with similar functions under the auspices of ICANN. 

  It is an interesting formulation of the problem statement...   At present, I would describe 
  the IANA functions as "a set of tasks" rather than an "entity", and hence would instead
  phrase the purpose of a roadmap as:

  "This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions (which are necessary for the secure 
  and proper functioning of the Internet) that are currently administered by ICANN per
  USG contract should remain at ICANN and be performed instead under its auspices 
  via the strengthening of accountability mechanisms to meet the global public interest."

I like Ian's initial note and this suggested refinement, but would also like to see some clarification regarding those IANA functions which do not relate to the DNS root. 

    Subject of course to many concerns about details, this direction appears to have widespread support from governments, civil society, technical community, and private sector.

     In order to achieve this desired change efficiently and productively, the following roadmap is proposed.

    1.       ICANN should be requested to prepare a proposal for management of the previous IANA functions within the ICANN multistakeholder model, bearing in mind the following criteria:

    (a) protection of the root zone from political or other improper interference; 

  The above criteria confuses me - are we referring to ICANN's DNS policy development role, 
  or performance of the IANA functions?   The latter are technical tasks in registry administration
  and the most important criteria would be that ICANN continue to implement all IANA registry 
  functions in accordance with the respective policies (I guess one could further elaborate to 
  point out that operating per respective policies means free from political or other interference,
  but that really is secondary to making sure that the IANA follows IETF protocol, RIR IP, and 
  ICANN DNS policies, both presently adopted and as revised in the future.)

Right. In particular, one would hope that proper administration of the IANA functions includes protection from "improper interference" in any  of them as an initial requirement.

The IANA functions do not consist only of those related to the DNS, yet many of the suggestions and assumptions we see tend to be limited to issues and mechanisms that may apply more closely to DNS-related IANA functions than to others. It would be helpful to be clear whether we're talking about the DNS-related functions only, or the full scope of IANA's responsibilities to the internet community.

best,
Suzanne

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140303/ef219837/attachment-0001.html>