David I view these as highly constructive comments and would support creation of a "design team" around them. Indeed, it's the only one I see as being really needed at the present time. You may recall that I supported also your earlier comment about root signing. Not sure we agree 100% on the independence of these issues from the accountability models, but I do agree that we can discuss them productively and perhaps develop requirements for them without committing anyone to a particular model, especially now that the ASK model has moved us toward some kind of middle ground. --MM
-----Original Message----- From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:58 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A liaison from the Board to CWG)
Milton,
I am flattered that you view me as personally responsible for keeping the CWG on mission.
I'll bill you for the replacement of my irony meter.
You are of course correct that the NTIA is in the loop for all root zone changes.
NTIA being "in the loop" for root zone changes is a relatively minor issue, easily dealt with in a variety of ways.
Traditionally (well, since the creation of ICANN), NTIA has also been "in the loop" for pretty much all substantive changes related to the structure and operation of the root of the DNS, e.g., the decision on whether and how to sign the root (requiring proposals from both ICANN and Verisign and ultimately choosing the Verisign proposal after their internal evaluation), the mechanism by which the plan for rolling the root Key Signing Key is defined, the decision about whether and how to add internationalized top-level domains, etc. Even the very definition of the "three-legged stool" by which NTIA has inserted itself into the operation of all root zone changes via the IANA Functions Contract and the Cooperative Agreement with Verisign must change.
Yet, to my knowledge, the mechanism(s) by which issues like these are addressed in the post-NTIA world have not yet been discussed in any detail. Hopefully a "design team" will be spun up to look at the mechanism by which issues like these can be addressed.
But it cannot be discussed independently of the issue of whether IANA is separable from ICANN or permanently locked into ICANN or structurally separated from the policy making entity.
Oh sure it can.
The mechanisms by which accountability of the IANA Function operator can be ensured that have been discussed to date seem primarily to revolve around pulling the IANA Functions away from ICANN and giving them to someone else (even though no one actually wants to do that now as far as I can tell -- we're told it's for the future).
What the IANA Root Management Function Operator actually DOES insofar as it involves NTIA should (must IMHO) be independent of who actually performs the function. As such, it is eminently possible to discuss independently of whether the IANA functions are separable from ICANN or not.
It might even be more productive for you to suggest specific models for changes in the operational practice of root zone changes minus NTIA.
If you might recall, I did, describing one way in which flaws I see in the existing "three-legged stool" could be addressed. Long ago, I also tried to get folks to address NTIA's direct involvement in root zone management. To little avail -- a small number of folks seem to redirect all discussion towards the accountability stuff.
In my opinion, while I would agree the accountability stuff is important and needs to be addressed, it should not preclude addressing the other critical issues associated with the transition.
Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO but speaking only for myself)