Deasr All, Perhaps the issue was much simpler and straigjht forward than wjhat we discussing. Wouildn't be more prudent to keep the texct as iot was and when ever ,we refer to coorinationin the text we complemented it b" and support ,where applicable and required" The rest unchanged$ Regards Kavouss 2015-11-09 5:13 GMT+01:00 Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson@gmail.com>:

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-steward...

...

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?

---------- 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 10:02 PM, Andrew Sullivan <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

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson@gmail.com> 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? The question may not be so simple as 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.

<snip>