Dear Chuck: With respect to your point 2, below -

IANA Functions …

- allow me to recall that in 1997-1998 there was no doubt at all in our minds (I was there) that ICANN was created to be the home of IANA. After all, at that time there wasn't much else. In Europe, following consultation with relevant multistakeholders (as one would say today) the EU supported the integration of the IANA functions within ICANN. Regards Christopher On 22 Dec 2014, at 20:49, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

Here are my personal thoughts on the Board comments.

1. They seem to put an excessive emphasis on Work Stream 1 of the Accountability CCWG, which comes across to me like they are trying to narrow the focus of the IANA transition just like they did when they created the two work streams. 2. On page 2 in the first paragraph under IANA Functions, they say, “..ICANN was created and purpose--‐built to be the permanent and robust home of the IANA functions.” That may have been the purpose of the particular individuals who formed ICANN; I cannot speak to their motives. But my understanding was that ICANN was created to fulfill the role discussed in the DoC White Paper of replacing the U.S. Government’s role in the overall coordination of DNS identifiers. That role certainly includes the IANA functions, but the Board statement makes it sound like that was the main purpose and it goes on to add the words ‘permanent and robust home’. I do not recall those words in the discussion that occurred at the four Internet Forum for the White Paper meetings that occurred in the summer of 1998 that preceded ICANN’s formation. 3. I do agree with them that the transition to ICANN “is, in large part, what ICANN was designed to do”, although I don’t think that meant the IANA functions exclusively. 4. They disagree with the formation of a separate contracting entity but they fail to address the fact that the possibility of separating the IANA functions from ICANN was one of the key accountability mechanisms that NTIA provided that impacted not just the IANA services but all of ICANN accountability.

That said, I appreciate the fact that the Board submitted these comments and I think we should take them into consideration as we review and evaluate all of the public comments.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Crocker Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 1:58 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Cc: Stephen D. Crocker Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: ICANN Board Comments on Cross Community Working Group (CWG) Draft Transition Proposal for Naming Related Functions

Folks,

The ICANN Board has just submitted the attached public comment.

Thanks,

Steve Crocker for the ICANN Board of Directors

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Hi Chuck On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

Here are my personal thoughts on the Board comments.

3. I do agree with them that the transition to ICANN “is, in large part, what ICANN was designed to do”, although I don’t think that meant the IANA functions exclusively.

Sorry if its not IANA functions then what else is there to transition?

4. They disagree with the formation of a separate contracting entity but they fail to address the fact that the possibility of separating the IANA functions from ICANN was one of the key accountability mechanisms that NTIA provided that impacted not just the IANA services but all of ICANN accountability.

Again if i may ask, could you tell me how else NTIA would have handled oversight apart from contracting? just like the RIR and IETF communities, is there any other way ICANN could operate their related functions without an agreement(SLA)? because these organisations are external and independent of ICANN. So IMO if we really want to continue contracting, then we need another organisation like NTIA (in its full independent of the IANA operator) to get the job done effectively. However, because this shoe is now to be worn by "multistakeholder" then it just makes practical sense to integrate oversight (accountability) into the existing organisation. Someone wrote a blog and defined a bylaw (paraphrased) as the document that indicate how an organisation operate while a contract is the one that tells how an organisation *should *execute a specific set of tasks. However the person failed to indicate that any entity that would exercise the latter would exhibit absolute control both in resource and independence from the operator. In a situation where that is not possible, the former becomes a realistic target solution to concentrate on. There has been questions/comments about how contract co / MRT(in its current overreaching responsibilities) will be accountable and i have seen some response still point to the bylaw of the contract co as a possible avenue to restrict things. Why then do we find it difficult to have such thinking on the ICANN bylaw? someone said ICANN bylaw can be changed by the board, and how about contract co bylaw? The earlier we face the reality of multiple loop holes we are about to create (in addition to existing ones) with the current CWG proposal the better for us all in this process. That said, I appreciate the fact that the Board submitted these comments

and I think we should take them into consideration as we review and evaluate all of the public comments.

+1 Thanks

Chuck

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Steve Crocker *Sent:* Monday, December 22, 2014 1:58 PM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Cc:* Stephen D. Crocker *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: ICANN Board Comments on Cross Community Working Group (CWG) Draft Transition Proposal for Naming Related Functions

Folks,

The ICANN Board has just submitted the attached public comment.

Thanks,

Steve Crocker

for the ICANN Board of Directors

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !

On 22 Dec 2014, at 21:40, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

The option of separating IANA from ICANN provided important accountability.

Dear Chuck: I think that you overstate the case. Granted, there was at least one occasion when NTIA delayed the renewal of the contract in order to obtain a better offer from ICANN. OK. But observing this at the time, albeit from afar, there was never an even remote expectation of separation. In such an eventuality, the whole 1997 international negotiation over the creation of ICANN would have been re-opened. That which, no doubt, none of the parities, including NTIA, would have wished. Regards Christopher

Chuck, I like your formulation below: "*I don't think any of us want to transfer the functions outside of ICANN. We just want to make sure that we never have to*." This highlights the need to balance between building ongoing accountability mechanisms to ensure that things are functioning well versus building separability mechanisms as the core accountability foundation. The current CWG proposal is tending a bit too much towards the second aspect in my view and does not lead to sufficient attention to the practical way the IANA functions operate. Rummaging through the early postings on the list Archives, I found this prescient comment from Kieren: *"IANA is not a stationary function and I think it would be smart to recognize that. I am concerned that because we have a lot of policy people and process people here but not many business folk that this group may draw up wonderful new structures that just add more process rather than focus on making the IANA functions a very efficient machine with happy customers."* Seems to be a remark that resonates with several of the comments submitted in the last few days. At least we have obtained quite a strong consensus in the comments regarding the public posting of requests. A concrete outcome. Merry Christmas to all :-) Bertrand On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

That seems to be beside the point Christopher. The one incidence resulted in better accountability. I don't think any of us want to transfer the functions outside of ICANN. We just want to make sure that we never have to.

Chuck

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

Sorry if its not IANA functions then what else is there to transition?

*[Chuck Gomes] Note ICANN’s mission:*

....as if those are exclusive of the functions; its like saying united states is exclusive to California ;-)

*“*1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet, which are

a. Domain names (forming a system referred to as "DNS");

b. Internet protocol ("IP") addresses and autonomous system ("AS") numbers; and

c. Protocol port and parameter numbers.

2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system.

3. Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions.*”*

*There is much more than IANA services here. If not, then ICANN is way too big.*

4. They disagree with the formation of a separate contracting entity but they fail to address the fact that the possibility of separating the IANA functions from ICANN was one of the key accountability mechanisms that NTIA provided that impacted not just the IANA services but all of ICANN accountability.

Again if i may ask, could you tell me how else NTIA would have handled oversight apart from contracting? just like the RIR and IETF communities, is there any other way ICANN could operate their related functions without an agreement(SLA)? because these organisations are external and independent of ICANN. So IMO if we really want to continue contracting, then we need another organisation like NTIA (in its full independent of the IANA operator) to get the job done effectively. However, because this shoe is now to be worn by "multistakeholder" then it just makes practical sense to integrate oversight (accountability) into the existing organisation. Someone wrote a blog and defined a bylaw (paraphrased) as the document that indicate how an organisation operate while a contract is the one that tells how an organisation *should *execute a specific set of tasks. However the person failed to indicate that any entity that would exercise the latter would exhibit absolute control both in resource and independence from the operator. In a situation where that is not possible, the former becomes a realistic target solution to concentrate on.

There has been questions/comments about how contract co / MRT(in its current overreaching responsibilities) will be accountable and i have seen some response still point to the bylaw of the contract co as a possible avenue to restrict things. Why then do we find it difficult to have such thinking on the ICANN bylaw? someone said ICANN bylaw can be changed by the board, and how about contract co bylaw? The earlier we face the reality of multiple loop holes we are about to create (in addition to existing ones) with the current CWG proposal the better for us all in this process.*[Chuck Gomes] *\

*[Chuck Gomes] You missed my point Seun. The option of separating IANA from ICANN provided important accountability. If that option goes away, so does the accountability with it.*

Maybe you missed mine as well....but i am learning to control my mail trail lately so i won't try again. May see you offlist though ;) Thanks Cheers!

That said, I appreciate the fact that the Board submitted these comments and I think we should take them into consideration as we review and evaluate all of the public comments.

+1

Thanks

Chuck

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Steve Crocker *Sent:* Monday, December 22, 2014 1:58 PM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Cc:* Stephen D. Crocker *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: ICANN Board Comments on Cross Community Working Group (CWG) Draft Transition Proposal for Naming Related Functions

Folks,

The ICANN Board has just submitted the attached public comment.

Thanks,

Steve Crocker

for the ICANN Board of Directors

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

--

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: * *http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> **Mobile: +2348035233535 <%2B2348035233535>* *alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !