Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Strickling Remarks from 4 December re IANA Transition and Accountability
AG: And a few more... I just want to add a few points to Milton's response, since he (thankfully) said much of what I would have said (and more besides). On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
I would say that this has already been demonstrated in the making up of the ICG and the current CWG, both of which include non ICANN participants from the global multistakeholder community.
MM: Hello Olivier. Both the ICG and this CWG have been empowered by an external entity – the NTIA. It was the NTIA that kicked off the process by signaling its willingness to let go. It was NTIA that told ICANN to convene but not control the process. It was the NTIA that set the parameters and basic criteria a transition proposal had to meet. It is the NTIA, and the US government more broadly, that will ultimately determine whether the proposals we develop will be implemented. To look at these processes as outgrowths of processes internal to ICANN is to be fundamentally out of touch with what is going on here. As Jordan Carter pointed out in a message a few minutes ago, given the concessions we had to wring out of ICANN to make these processes as independent as they are, it is evident that these examples you hold up would have been very different had they been internal to ICANN.
GSS: The ICG is definitely not "internal-to-ICANN." Here is #3 of the ICG's FAQs: Is the ICG part of ICANN? No. The ICG is an independent coordination group that has been established as a result of a broad community consultation and in response to the NTIA's announcement. The ICG is conducting its work in an open, transparent and independent manner. The ICG will be providing its report to the community broadly. Moreover, the ICG has issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to select a suitable neutral and independent contractor to perform its secretariat function <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-09-09-en>. The role of the secretariat is strictly limited to the functions that support the ICG, and will report exclusively to the ICG, its Chair or Vice-Chair(s). AG: Greg, no one said the ICG was internal to ICANN. Olivier's comment was in reply to your statement about the MRT (which Milton deleted in adding his message). You had said the that the MRT would be internal to ICANN (your presumption) and this could not include other non-ICANN stakeholders. Olivier was pointing out that the MRT could be patterened after the ICG (outside of ICANN and with other stakeholders.
Similarly, I would point out that a totally independent MRT that does not make use of ICANN's existing structures as a convenor would be missing a coordinated Governmental involvement. Indeed, only ICANN has the ability to make use of its members to relate back to the GAC and for the GAC to express points. A totally independent MRT would have individual governments speaking. Of course, individual governments were able to speak outside of ICANN at, say ITU meetings or at NetMundial - but they were not restricted to a handful of seats for the whole world.
MM: The MRT _*will*_ make use of ICANN’s institutionalized representational structures. No one who has thought seriously about the composition of the MRT has proposed anything different from that. The GNSO SGs will be putting people on to the MRT, so will the ccNSO, so will the GAC, so will SSAC, so will ALAC. So will entities outside of ICANN. But it will be independent of ICANN legally, which as Greg explained is essential.
GSS: As stated above, the ICG is not part of ICANN, yet it makes use of ICANN's structures (including the GAC), so your statement doesn't hold water. The MRT can be set up in a similar fashion. AG: Yes indeed. In both the current proposal and in what the ALAC envisions. BUt what is the incentive for ICANN doing this in a wolrd where the IAIA function has been removed from ICANN. Will ICANN want to do this, and more to the point, would you TRUST ICANN to organize the MRT if you no longer had faith in ICANN?
MM: As a sideline, I am a bit disturbed by the special emphasis you are placing on governmental involvement. Outside of their jurisdiction, Governments’ only claim to involvement in ICANN is as one of many voices in the policy development process. I do hope you, and all ALAC members, understand that the IANA functions contractor is not a policy making institution, nor is it supposed to be a vehicle for circumventing or vetoing policy.
MM: When it comes to the IANA functions, we do not need governments “speaking,” collectively or individually, about implementation. We need them in their role as ccTLD administrators, in which case they are just another IANA customer. Insofar as they are indirectly affected by the IANA functions, they are just another internet user stakeholder group – no different from or more important than noncommercial organizations or business users. There is no legitimate reason to afford governments a special collective voice in the MRT. Even in the terms of the Tunis Agenda, a document written by and for governments, IANA qualifies as “day to day technical and operational matters” and thus as something to be left to the private sector.
At this stage, I could use exactly the same wording about the current CWG first draft, replacing "other than to be 'internal-to-ICANN" with "other than to be separable from ICANN".
GSS: This is a false equivalency. You are comparing a five-line three-sentence paragraph -- about which nothing is known other than those few words -- with an entire section in the proposal which has been worked out and debated and amplified and clarified through hours of meetings and phone calls and hundreds of emails. MM: The rationale for separability has been explained countless times. It is an accountability measure, a way of giving the community the most meaningful form of redress in case the functions are abused or not performed well. Moreover, the IANA functions have always been under a contractual relationship. The burden of proof is on those who would say IANA functions should be perpetually locked in to one corporation. And I completely agree with Greg on this question: we hear your discomfort with Contract Co but we have no idea what positive value you are seeking to advance by opposing it, other than to keep everything within ICANN. Clearly we have some work ahead of us to make either proposal, or a mix, workable. There will be and can be no mix; either ICANN owns IANA or it is contracted. I think there is work to be done on this plan, but have seen no serious challenges to its inherent workability. On the other hand, the workability of an internal to ICANN option is lying in a heap of rubble at the bottom of Greg’s last message.
A last response before a short night's sleep. On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
AG: And a few more...
I just want to add a few points to Milton's response, since he (thankfully) said much of what I would have said (and more besides).
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
I would say that this has already been demonstrated in the making up of the ICG and the current CWG, both of which include non ICANN participants from the global multistakeholder community.
MM: Hello Olivier. Both the ICG and this CWG have been empowered by an external entity – the NTIA. It was the NTIA that kicked off the process by signaling its willingness to let go. It was NTIA that told ICANN to convene but not control the process. It was the NTIA that set the parameters and basic criteria a transition proposal had to meet. It is the NTIA, and the US government more broadly, that will ultimately determine whether the proposals we develop will be implemented. To look at these processes as outgrowths of processes internal to ICANN is to be fundamentally out of touch with what is going on here. As Jordan Carter pointed out in a message a few minutes ago, given the concessions we had to wring out of ICANN to make these processes as independent as they are, it is evident that these examples you hold up would have been very different had they been internal to ICANN.
GSS: The ICG is definitely not "internal-to-ICANN." Here is #3 of the ICG's FAQs:
Is the ICG part of ICANN? No. The ICG is an independent coordination group that has been established as a result of a broad community consultation and in response to the NTIA's announcement. The ICG is conducting its work in an open, transparent and independent manner. The ICG will be providing its report to the community broadly. Moreover, the ICG has issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to select a suitable neutral and independent contractor to perform its secretariat function <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-09-09-en>. The role of the secretariat is strictly limited to the functions that support the ICG, and will report exclusively to the ICG, its Chair or Vice-Chair(s).
AG: Greg, no one said the ICG was internal to ICANN. Olivier's comment was in reply to your statement about the MRT (which Milton deleted in adding his message). You had said the that the MRT would be internal to ICANN (your presumption) and this could not include other non-ICANN stakeholders.
GSS: I did not say that -- I asked how an internal-to-ICANN MRT would include non-ICANN stakeholders.
Olivier was pointing out that the MRT could be patterened after the ICG (outside of ICANN and with other stakeholders.
GSS: And then he asserted that an organization outside of ICANN could not take advantage of ICANN structures like the GAC, so his proposition is internally inconsistent. In any event, the two proposals do not have to diverge utterly in every respect -- and the discussion about the MRT may serve to clarify some aspects of it in the next iteration of our group's proposal.
Similarly, I would point out that a totally independent MRT that does
not make use of ICANN's existing structures as a convenor would be missing a coordinated Governmental involvement. Indeed, only ICANN has the ability to make use of its members to relate back to the GAC and for the GAC to express points. A totally independent MRT would have individual governments speaking. Of course, individual governments were able to speak outside of ICANN at, say ITU meetings or at NetMundial - but they were not restricted to a handful of seats for the whole world.
MM: The MRT _*will*_ make use of ICANN’s institutionalized representational structures. No one who has thought seriously about the composition of the MRT has proposed anything different from that. The GNSO SGs will be putting people on to the MRT, so will the ccNSO, so will the GAC, so will SSAC, so will ALAC. So will entities outside of ICANN. But it will be independent of ICANN legally, which as Greg explained is essential.
GSS: As stated above, the ICG is not part of ICANN, yet it makes use of ICANN's structures (including the GAC), so your statement doesn't hold water. The MRT can be set up in a similar fashion.
AG: Yes indeed. In both the current proposal and in what the ALAC envisions. BUt what is the incentive for ICANN doing this in a wolrd where the IAIA function has been removed from ICANN. Will ICANN want to do this, and more to the point, would you TRUST ICANN to organize the MRT if you no longer had faith in ICANN?
GSS: I am not assuming that ICANN would organize the MRT. And in both the current proposal and what ALAC envisions, the IANA function can be removed from ICANN (or is that an incorrect assumption too?). So either way, the MRT has to be set up in a way that it transcends the current status of ICANN as the IANA Functions Operator. Greg
MM: As a sideline, I am a bit disturbed by the special emphasis you are
placing on governmental involvement. Outside of their jurisdiction, Governments’ only claim to involvement in ICANN is as one of many voices in the policy development process. I do hope you, and all ALAC members, understand that the IANA functions contractor is not a policy making institution, nor is it supposed to be a vehicle for circumventing or vetoing policy.
MM: When it comes to the IANA functions, we do not need governments “speaking,” collectively or individually, about implementation. We need them in their role as ccTLD administrators, in which case they are just another IANA customer. Insofar as they are indirectly affected by the IANA functions, they are just another internet user stakeholder group – no different from or more important than noncommercial organizations or business users. There is no legitimate reason to afford governments a special collective voice in the MRT. Even in the terms of the Tunis Agenda, a document written by and for governments, IANA qualifies as “day to day technical and operational matters” and thus as something to be left to the private sector.
At this stage, I could use exactly the same wording about the current CWG first draft, replacing "other than to be 'internal-to-ICANN" with "other than to be separable from ICANN".
GSS: This is a false equivalency. You are comparing a five-line three-sentence paragraph -- about which nothing is known other than those few words -- with an entire section in the proposal which has been worked out and debated and amplified and clarified through hours of meetings and phone calls and hundreds of emails.
MM: The rationale for separability has been explained countless times. It is an accountability measure, a way of giving the community the most meaningful form of redress in case the functions are abused or not performed well. Moreover, the IANA functions have always been under a contractual relationship. The burden of proof is on those who would say IANA functions should be perpetually locked in to one corporation. And I completely agree with Greg on this question: we hear your discomfort with Contract Co but we have no idea what positive value you are seeking to advance by opposing it, other than to keep everything within ICANN. Clearly we have some work ahead of us to make either proposal, or a mix, workable.
There will be and can be no mix; either ICANN owns IANA or it is contracted. I think there is work to be done on this plan, but have seen no serious challenges to its inherent workability. On the other hand, the workability of an internal to ICANN option is lying in a heap of rubble at the bottom of Greg’s last message.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
participants (2)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Greg Shatan