Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.
Dear Avri: Thank you for your most recent posting (below) about the so-called "Integrated" model--not only do I concur with your own critique of that model ("I personally hate the idea of splitting IANA, and think it is a disastrous thing to do"--Avri) which saves me a lot of time in this response, I also have further objections: 1. It is by far the most complex model proposed thus far--exceeding anything proposed in either of the 2 external models (Contract Co or Trust) or the 2 internal models pre-ICANN 52. This is counter to comments made at ICANN 52 (I listened to them all) as well as many comments to the original draft proposal as being "too complex." Because of its complexity, the Integrated model raises numerous legal as well as operational issues and possibly unforeseen problems that will need to be first addressed by groups outside of this CWG--some of those have already been identified in this mail thread-*-e.g.*, IETF *et al.* 2. Beyond the question of legal advisability of separating IANA from ICANN, or the ramifications of doing so upon ICANN's policy making and regulatory authority which I raised last week, I object to putting ICANN in the potential position where it could be held "hostage" by IANA functions controlled by third parties, or the IANA functions could potentially be "captured," by a select group of stakeholders to the exclusion of the global multistakeholder community whose interests (*i.e.,* the Global Public Interest) the ICANN Board of Directors is ultimately supposed to represent (see Affirmation of Commitments <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-...>). The IANA department is a small department (11 people) fulfilling a very important, necessary role in the coordination of the DNS, and apparently doing it quite well <http://www.internetassignednumbersauthority.org/reports/2014/customer-survey...>. ICANN is the IANA functions operator on behalf of the entire global multistakeholder community, not just the names, numbers, or protocols communities. ICANN should thus remain the IANA functions operator post-transition, as it is pre-transition, without the threat of unilateral take-over by select self-interested groups. 3. I now have it on good authority that neither NTIA nor ICANN have taken "off the table" any of the four models (2 external, 2 internal) which were "on the table" pre-ICANN 52. I frankly do not understand why anyone would draft a 5th proposal that contains a potentially "disastrous thing to do" in the opinion of one or more of its own authors, and yet we are spending precious time on this at the CWG meeting tomorrow. Are we just filling time and trying to look "busy" while awaiting procurement of independent legal counsel? Has this CWG really become that dysfunctional? Or are we now reduced to making dangerous or "disastrous" compromises ("integrated" proposals) in a feeble attempt to reach "consensus?" 4. I do not understand your statement (below) "as was foredained by the ICG?" When and where did ICG "foredain" the idea of splitting IANA? 5. Finally the ultimate question that every model should answer to the clear satisfaction of the CWG before being proposed to ICG--What happens* "in extremis" *(ICANN insolvency, hostile capture of IANA or ICANN, etc.)?
From my perspective, it looks like the Integrated model offers nothing but chaos in such a situation.
I know you are an experienced policy wonk and will not take personally any of the above (but in fact welcome my straightforward comments). I personally value your presence and many contributions to the work of this CWG. Best regards, John Poole http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001868.html Avri Doria avri at acm.org Mon Feb 23 04:02:22 UTC 2015 *While I personally hate the idea of splitting IANA, and think it is a disastrous thing to do, it remains possible in this model as was foreordained by the ICG. I do hope the Integrated model* helps make that less likely. but if any of the 3 operational communities wants to leave, they could. avri * and it is not mine though I am representing it, at least over the weekend - i am one of three authors*
On 23-Feb-15 10:34, John Poole wrote:
4. I do not understand your statement (below) "as was foredained by the ICG?" When and where did ICG "foredain" the idea of splitting IANA?
By dividing the topic as they did, they precluded any solution that focused on maintaining a single IANA. By creating a framework that precluded integrated models, they fore ordained, in my opinion, that an operational split in IANA would persist at the conceptual level. Adding that the Protocol operational community has, and wishes to maintain, a contract that says they could split IANA with 6 months notice means that all solutions for the IANA Stewardship Transition will be subject to splitting as the solution to Protocols and Numbers issues. I beleive we need solutions that help make that less likely to happen. avri
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:50:39AM -0500, Avri Doria wrote:
Adding that the Protocol operational community has, and wishes to maintain, a contract that says they could split IANA with 6 months notice means that all solutions for the IANA Stewardship Transition will be subject to splitting as the solution to Protocols and Numbers issues. I beleive we need solutions that help make that less likely to happen.
This is a key point, I think: the MoU between ICANN and the IETF says that either party can terminate with 6 months' notice. This entails that it has always been possible for the IANA functions to split. But the IETF has been quite clear that it has no interest in such a split and would prefer things remain together. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
-----Original Message-----
This is a key point, I think: the MoU between ICANN and the IETF says that either party can terminate with 6 months' notice. This entails that it has always been possible for the IANA functions to split. But the IETF has been quite clear that it has no interest in such a split and would prefer things remain together.
Right. I think Avri and others hyperventilating about splitting the IANA functions are creating a mountain out of a molehill. There are some minor areas where the IANA functions benefit from being under the same roof, but most of the work is independent. There is no hard technical requirement for being in the same organization as long as certain forms of coordination are maintained or enabled in some other way. But no one, certainly not IETF, is interested in splitting them for the sake of splitting them. If IETF chose to walk away from the current IANA functions provider, I am sure it would be for a very good reason. It is up to them to decide whether the potential risks of doing are outweighed by the benefits (or avoidance of bad things) they saw. It is also possible that the three communities, or two of the three, could coordinate a switch to a new provider if it became necessary. If IANA were performing terribly for numbers or protocols it might also be performing terribly for names. The idea that allowing a dissatisfied customer of the IANA functions to switch means that the IANA will inherently become fragmented is really kind of absurd. It's like saying that married couples should never be allowed to divorce because they are always better off together. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but the benefits and costs of each option are for them to decide.
participants (4)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Avri Doria -
John Poole -
Milton L Mueller