FYI Video and audio of Strickling'e INET NY comments are at http://bit.ly/inetnyarchive. j ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Markus Kummer <kummer@isoc.org> Date: Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:17 AM Subject: [Chapter-delegates] SEEKING INPUTS} US Department of Commerce IANA Further Notice of Inquiry To: Chapter Delegates <chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org>, isoc-members-announce@elists.isoc.org, ISOC Chapter Support < chapter-support@isoc.org> Dear Chapter Delegates and Members, You may already have looked at the IANA Functions Further Notice of Inquiry (FNOI), which was officially published on 14 June 2011. The document is being made available through NTIA's website: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/FR_IANA_FurtherNOI_06102011.pdf NTIA is seeking public comment on a draft statement of work (Draft SOW), which will be part of the procurement process for the new IANA functions contract. Comments are due within 45 days after publication. We plan to prepare a response and would be grateful for your input. Any comments received by 5 July will be considered and, to the extent possible, incorporated in a first draft. We will of course give you an opportunity to comment on the draft before submitting it to NTIA. You may recall that among other things we had suggested in our response to the original NOI that: - the US government should not under any circumstances expand the scope of the IANA function contract or their role in it; - there is a desire to gradually increase independence from the USG; - the roles of the IETF, IAB, RIRs, and ccTLD operators should be recognized in the system without implying US government control over them; - there is a need to build international confidence in how the IANA function is operated and administered; - there should be increased predictability for the IANA contractor by moving away from short-term contracts to a more stable instrument. It may be of interest to you that Lawrence Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator, commented on the FNOI at last Tuesday’s INET in New York on the very day it was published. He summed it up as follows: Quote: First, we propose a functional separation between DNS policy making wherever it occurs at ICANN or elsewhere in the actual execution of tasks associated with the IANA functions. Second, we propose enhanced transparency and accountability through the development of documentation processes as well as performance standards and metrics to establish service levels. Third, we propose that the contractor needs to include documentation that demonstrates how proposed new top level domain strings have received consensus support from relevant stakeholders and are supported by the global public interest. Unquote Below are some of the key elements contained in the FNOI in more detail: The FNOI makes it clear “that it is not in discussions with ICANN to transition the IANA functions nor does the agency intend to undertake such discussions.” It also states that “NTIA does not have the legal authority to enter into a cooperative agreement with any organization, including ICANN, for the performance of the IANA functions.” NTIA envisages a one year extension of the contract and makes the following comments in this regard: “NTIA does not view the previously awarded IANA functions contracts as short-term contracts. Typical contracts are for one year, while the previous IANA functions contracts had terms, once options were exercised, of five years.” On the documentation processes, mentioned by Assistant Secretary Strickling, the SOW “requires the contractor, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, to develop a process for documenting the source of the policies and procedures and how it has applied the relevant policies and procedures in processing all TLD requests (…) For delegation requests for new generic TLDS (gTLDs), the Contractor shall include documentation to demonstrate how the proposed string has received consensus support from relevant stakeholders and is supported by the global public interest. In addition, “the IANA functions contractor should document its decision making with respect to relevant national laws of the jurisdiction which the TLD registry serves, how the TLD reflects community consensus among relevant stakeholders and/or is supported by the global public interest.” The SOW proposes automating the root zone management process and considers this a priority. It requires that “the contractor generate a monthly audit report to track each root zone change request and include the identification of the policy under which the changes were made.” Furthermore, NTIA will “require the Contractor to designate a Director of Security and consult with NTIA on any changes in this critical position. During the procurement process, NTIA will also require the identification of this key personnel and a demonstration of their qualifications for the position prior to contract award.” Lastly, it is proposed that the contractor undergoes an annual security audit by an external, independent specialized compliance auditor against relevant international standards. Assistant Secretary Strickling’s speech at the INET gives some insight into the thinking behind the FNOI. He made it clear that the US is fully supportive of the multistakeholder ICANN model, but he also identified some questions that needed to be addressed, first and foremost the recommendations proposed by the accountability and transparency review team. He said in this regard: “But the question now is whether the ICANN board and management have the discipline and willpower to embrace and implement these recommendations in a serious and meaningful way. (…) A second challenge facing ICANN in Singapore is finding a way to adequately address the collective concerns of governments as expressed through the government advisory committee regarding the expansion of the generic top level domain names." The full transcript of his speech can be read at: http://isoc-ny.org/inet/transcripts/INETNY6_strickling.txt The FNOI will need to be carefully analyzed. While some of our concerns with regard to enhancing the transparency of all processes are addressed and the roles of key institutions are recognized, some key points are not met, such as the demand for a more stable and long-term instrument. There are also a number of questions with regard to the documentation processes. Does this mean the USG reserves a right to veto ICANN board decisions if they fail to “reflect community consensus among relevant stakeholders and/or is supported by the global public interest”? Also, the proposed NTIA involvement in the hiring of the IANA Security Director signals an expanded USG role, which would be contrary to what we had hoped for. It is our intention to comment on the FNOI in the light of the key points we had made in our first submission. We look forward to your input into the discussion. Best regards - Markus Markus Kummer Vice President, Public Policy Internet Society, Geneva Email: kummer@isoc.org www.isoc.org -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -