[discuss] Overview on the IANA Stewardship and Accountability related discussion going on in India

Amrita amritachoudhury8 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 10 04:15:00 UTC 2015


Apologies for cross posting. Sharing an overview of the discussions going on
in India related to  IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability.


Amrita Choudhury


CCAOI Newsletter
May, 2015


CCAOI organizes a Round Table Discussion on "IANA Transition & ICANN
Accountability Process & India's Position" 

The Round Table Discussion on the "IANA Transition & ICANN Accountability
Process and India's Position" was held on 30th May, 2015.

Over 95 participants from different stakeholder communities of India viz.,
Industry, Industry Associations, Academia, Civil Society, Lawyers,
Consultants, Government, Students, etc. participated in the discussion. 

Besides there were over 25 remote participants not only from different
cities of India (such as Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Indore, Trivandrum,
etc.) but also, members of ISOC Chapters from Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri
Lanka, who joined remotely.

The salient features of the study on the Indian Perspective on IANA
Stewardship Transition were shared with the audience. The Chair, Dr. Ajay
Kumar, shared a brief overview on the importance of participation of India
in this discussion.

Picture 1

During the discussion the participants acknowledged the following needs:

*	Stakeholders from India need to be more proactive and participative.
*	The issues  related to Internet Stability and Security; clarity in
the  jurisdiction of ICANN; Accountability and transparency of ICANN and
IANA Operator and Standards,  need to be prioritized: 

The participants also raised concerns regarding:

.         The lack of clarity on notion of 'community' 

.         The CWG Draft 2  being  too different from Draft 1

.         CCWG Accountability draft is complex

.         Lack of in-depth discussion on jurisdiction of ICANN especially,
US jurisdiction of ICANN

.         Unrealistic timelines of IANA transition and ICANN Accountability 

.         Language is a barrier in the public consultation process

.         No clarity about replacement of outgoing CEO of ICANN 


Picture 2

Some suggestions made by the participants included: 

*	Encourage collaboration at regional level to share concerns and
build views, and to evolve best practices;
*	Leverage India's huge potential derived from its participation in
protocols and standards development;
*	Lay emphasis on  accountability track including financial
accountability of ICANN, and use of proceeds from new gTLD auctions;
*	Focus on accountability of not just ICANN, but also contributors to
IETF, RIRs, National Names and Number Registries and other players including
respective staff and secretariats;
*	Promote greater ICANN engagement through more face to face meetings
across the world;
*	Prioritize on the core guiding principles of security, stability and
resilience in all the discussions;
*	Ensure focus of internet governance on interests of internet

CCAOI releases Report on "A Study on the Indian Perspective on the IANA
Stewardship Transition"

Dr. Ajay Kumar, Joint Secretary, DeitY released the report on "A Study on
the Indian Perspective on the IANA Stewardship Transition", conducted by
CCAOI, during the round table on 30th May 2015.

The study was conducted with the support of NIXI over a period of three
months, to identify the issues related to the NTIA stewardship transition
from the IANA operations, the different strains of thoughts, along with
their convergence and divergence, review the central issues from India
perspective after extensive consultation with stakeholders, highlighting
their importance and make recommendations on what should be the most
appropriate position for India. 

Representatives of all Stakeholder communities - Government, Industry,
Industry Associations, Civil Society, Academia, Experts, Lawyers,
Educationists, Politicians, Media and Internet users were met and
interviewed to have an in-depth understanding on the matter and then
formulate the recommendations.

The report recommends that a credible independent body must replace NTIA
which would be subject to international law, have an executive board
composed of independent persons, have an advisory board to address policy
matters, have a constitution that prevents capture by any state player,
obliged to act transparently and proportionally, be free to design its own
structure and work rules, able to raise its own resources  and not be bound
to accept directives other than from a duly constituted board.

The report also recommends that India must prioritize policy issue over
operational issue concerns, seek higher levels of accountability for ICANN
and not its replacement, undertake serious consultations with its large IT
industry, create awareness within government and outside about internet
governance matters, recognize its stake in a single and smooth functioning
internet, enabled by the existing 'multistakeholder' bodies involved in the
IANA function, reject proposals which lack acceptable levels of
accountability of ICANN and recognize that a successful Digital India
Programme can radically increase its stake in internet governance including
the IANA functions.

The report can be downloaded from the following link:

Government of India comments on the second Draft proposal on CWG Naming 

Indian Government's comments submitted on the 2nd draft of CWG Naming
Proposal are not limited to the proposal from the names community, but also
include some broader concerns and principles in respect of the IANA
transition process. 

Some of the points raised by the Indian Government include, concern that if
ICANN is awarded the role of the perpetual contracting authority for the
IANA function, it can create an impression that ICANN is no longer purely a
technical coordination body. The submission supports creation of Contract
Co., highlights the absence of external accountability and no mechanism to
change in case of dissatisfactory service, ICANN's role in naming policy
development to another entity. The document suggests that checks and
balances should be laid out against powers to be exercised by ICANN. The
issue of legal jurisdiction and need for checks and balances on the
performance of the policy development role with respect to names has also
been highlighted. The submission suggests that the role of the Root Zone
Maintainer should be included within the scope of the present transition


The other submission for India includes a submission by ISOC Chennai, CCG
and a proposal by an individual.


ISOC Chennai in their submission has suggested the concept of notional
separation of ICANN for managing IANA functions. They suggest that there is
no need in the structurally separate IANA for the IETF/RIRs/ Registries
(customers)/Governments and Users. Further, IETF / RIRs / Registries / Users
/ Governments could stay within ICANN, all the IANA oversight could be
overlooked by ICANN. 


CCG questions the basis for removal of  MRT, how the inputs of the community
were factored for CWG to conclude that ICANN would be the custodian of IANA
functions, need for creating an ICANN "affiliate" to perform IANA functions,
checks in place for smooth function of root zone system post transition. The
submission also questions the composition of the PTI Board, its
jurisdiction, reasons to do away altogether with the requirement of
"authorisation" to root zone changes etc.



The other individual submission states that the process is not inclusive and
just limited to elitists. The submission suggests that more outreach in
local languages would help to increase participation from the unrepresented


To view the Indian Government submission, visit:

To view all the comments submitted, visit:

Comments from India on the CCWG Accountability Proposal

There have been three comments from India on the CCWG Accountability Group's
proposal so far.

Government of India in their submission commented on the accountability of
ICANN, as an IANA Functions Operator, an Entity Involved in Policy
Development, the ambit of ICANN Accountability; the issue of Nature of
Accountability, the issue of Accountability and Community Empowerment, whom
ICANN would be accountable to. It also raises questions on ICANN's
Organizational DNA, Transparency and Processes, Jurisdiction and requirement
for more Stress Tests. 

The CCAOI submission highlights that the draft seems quite complex which
might make it more difficult for the stakeholders to participate in the
process. For enhanced engagement of the global community outside ICANN, it
suggests more face to face meetings across the world and outreach
activities. The lack in-depth discussion of jurisdiction of ICANN is also
highlighted. It also suggests that financial accountability of ICANN must be
included in the accountability discussion. Lastly, it is also suggested that
accountability should also be extended to contributors such as IETF, RIRs,
National Names and Number Registries and other players including respective
staff and secretariats.


In the CCG submission some of the issues highlighted include the
geographical diversity and compensation of the IPR panel; definitions of
public interest, binding of the ICANN board to community feedback process,
voting structure, board's accountability to GAC and jurisdiction issues.


The Indian Government's submission can be viewed from the following link:

The CCAOI submission can be viewed from the link:

The CCG submission can be viewed from the following link:

Upcoming Events and Opportunities

*	Africa @ Convergence Africa World 2015 Expo, Nairobi, Kenya, between
17 -19 June, 2015. To participate and for  more information, please contact
Mayank Gautam  (mayankg at eigroup.in ) or visit www.convergenceafricaworld.com
*	53rd ICANN Public Meeting will be held at Buenos Aires from 21st
-25th June 2015. For more details visit http://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/
*	The Best Practice Forum (BPF) on Developing meaningful multi
stakeholder participation mechanisms, (BPF-Multi stakeholder) is inviting
community members to submit a brief description (in max 500 words) of multi
stakeholder and other participatory democratic practices they have used that
have either worked very well or badly. The contributions should be submitted
to bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org and also to Brian Gutterman
(gutterman at un.org) by 13 July 2015. For further details visit:


Copyright C 2011 by CCAOI - All Rights Reserved.


CCAOI, c/o.  Abbot Business Centre, N -52, Connaught Place,   New Delhi -

Visit us online at: www.ccaoi.in 

For any comments/suggestions email: info at ccaoi.in   


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20150610/ea215f8f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4480 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20150610/ea215f8f/image001-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 45391 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20150610/ea215f8f/image002-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 45260 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20150610/ea215f8f/image003-0001.jpg>

More information about the discuss mailing list