Pasted below is my response to Andrew last week, which clarifies my
own position, including fuller text from my original post that did not
go to the list.
Seth
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
> Figured this will be asked and have to be answered at some point but not
> this early. I think it's just fine to get roles clarified as much as
> possible at this time in the interest of the future.
>
> http://www.afrinic.net/blog/21-the-journey-to-dublin-and-beyond-iana-stewardship-transition-and-icann-accountability
>
> Cheers!
>
> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On 3 Nov 2015 01:55, "Padmini" <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> In light of this thread, does it then make sense to completely separate
>> the three functions post the transition?
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Andrew Sullivan---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on
Mission Statement
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Cc: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>, Steve Crocker
<steve@stevecrocker.com>, Accountability Community
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, "IAB@Iab.org"
<IAB@iab.org>
I would state that intergovernmental authorities come into play now.
My point isn't that these functions are or should be coordinated by
ICANN, nor that they should not be coordinated by IETF. My point is
that the role of governments is now becoming more determinative
(despite the conduct of the coordination in IETF).
This edit, removing the (incorrect) use of the term coordination in
relation to ICANN and turning it into support and collaboration serves
to leave the functions in the intergovernmental context. Even if you
continue to conduct the processes in IETF. Not sure even specifying
somewhere (which is probably the case somewhere) changes it.
Not constructing any type of argument that ICANN had this coordinating
function, unless in the perhaps interesting sense that having the term
there helped make things look like governments didn't possess this
authority. I maintain that we're just clearing the path for them to
finally actually start asserting their intergovernmental authority.
This seems like just another case of the message not getting through.
If that's the case, I'll revert to saying "Just watch." :-)
(added my text back in below yours)
Seth
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson@gmail.com> wrote:<ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've trimmed some of the cc:s because I'm not really sure why the
> original was copied all over.
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 07:08:34PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> The real question relates to context in the transition though: where are
>> core registries and protocol parameters coordinated, if that function is
>> removed from ICANN?
>
> They are co-ordinated exactly where they have been at least since the
> founding of ICANN: at the IETF. The IETF makes the decisions about
> the protocol parameters registries. ICANN, in its role as IANA,
> records those decisions. The ICANN role in this case is basically
> clerical. The IETF has been perfectly clear about this all the way
> through the entire process. So has ICANN: that's what the MoU between
> ICANN and the IETF (and IAB) says.
>
> I suppose it would be possible to construct an argument that ICANN had
> this "co-ordination" function when there was still a Protocol
> Supporting Organization, but since the PSO went away rather a long
> time ago, that argument is no longer available in any case. (I happen
> not to accept that argument anyway, but since it doesn't ramify I
> don't think it's worth exploring in detail.)
>
> Best regards,
>
> A (speaking for myself)
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
The real question relates to context in the transition though: where
are core registries and protocol parameters coordinated, if that
function is removed from ICANN? The question may not be so simple as
<snip>the tech community might think.
We are moving from one context to another (a very different
stewardship context), and that changes things thoroughly in this case
(and generally should have been borne in mind in any such process
transition).
To put this in context further, I essentially brought this question up
at NetMundial:
Last NetMundial Panel on the IANA Transition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2DAvj5M60k#t=5713
My question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2DAvj5M60k#t=10186
Heather Dryden of GAC responded, though did not acknowledge that
governmental authority (or intergovernmental, as the resolutions I
referenced are largely ITU) would be already relevant even at that
stage for these supposedly "merely" technical functions, and steered
the question toward the names function instead:
Heather Dryden's (limited) response to my question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2DAvj5M60k#t=10400
I believe the ccTLDs were already in a position to act in those
"merely" technical areas even from that point (from the standpoint of
authority over their own country domains, though not necessarily so
free from the standpoint of what we were supposedly doing with a
multistakeholder/non-intergovernmental process -- plus all that "one
net" talk :-) ) but we were supposedly striving toward a
non-intergovernmental process according to NTIA, and the truth is the
public policy implications of acting even in these areas are not
really so "merely technical."
I don't believe it would generally be accepted that this version of
oversight would be established by the IANA Transition without engaging
on its ramifications.