Separating IANA Functions From ICANN, My Question To ICG

Ethics Fight Over Domain Names Intensifies - NYTimes.com: March 18, 2012 ".... the United States government is also dissatisfied with ICANN. The Commerce Department said it had canceled a request for proposals to run the so-called Internet Assigned Numbers Authority [IANA] because none of the bids met its requirements: “the need for structural separation of policy-making from implementation, a robust companywide conflict of interest policy, provisions reflecting heightened respect for local country laws and a series of consultation and reporting requirements to increase transparency and accountability to the international community.”..."

Jordan Carter, Chief Executive, InternetNZ, October 15, 2014, at ICANN 51:
"A thought that has been bubbling away here at ICANN LA this week for me: If we are going to have a successful [IANA functions] transition, it's really important for the numbers and protocols folks to understand that:
a) they have superior accountability situations to the names people today
b) the names people cannot copy number/protocol accountability mechanisms because they aren't organised outside ICANN
c) it isn't possible for names to organise outside ICANN in the way numbers/protocol people do
d) there may need to be structural changes or new bodies to provide a workable settlement for names
e) without a workable settlement for names, there isn't going to be a transition.

I raise this now because both for numbers and protocols there's a clear direction to try and rule out any institutional changes. I strongly caution against any part of the community being dogmatic about any of these, because it will a) attract some attention that'll risk the whole transition process failing (esp. from governments), and b) means that a negotiated outcome is harder to achieve, also risking failure...." (emphasis added)

GAC Discussion with IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group [ICG], 15 October 2014 from 10:30-11:30 PDT at ICANN51 | Los Angeles in the Santa Monica room:

Question to ICG from John Poole, Domain Mondo (via chat window): "Your process assumes that ICANN continues to exist as it is presently structured—a California corporation with no membership, etc. Yesterday [Tuesday, Oct 14], ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade told GAC that in regard to the Accountability Process, “everything is in Scope” and “nothing is out of Scope” which by implication includes the possibility that ICANN may be replaced or restructured. Without knowing the future organizational structure and accountability structure/controls of ICANN or its successor, how can the IANA transition planning proceed and be expected to produce a competent and relevant proposal for Stewardship of the IANA Functions unless your Proposal provides for the complete structural separation of IANA functions from ICANN?"

Response: Thank you for your question.  Only the questions from GAC members will be read out. 

UPDATE: Question asked at Community Discussion with the IANA Stewardship (ICG) and answered by ICG member Milton Mueller below:

MILTON MUELLER: "NOTHING IN OUR PROCESS PRESUMES THAT YOU CANNOT MAKE STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN ANY OF THE OPERATIONAL COMMUNITIES RELATIONSHIP TO ICANN OR TO IANA. I THINK IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHAT THESE COMMUNITIES WILL AGREE TO DO OR WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. SO I THINK THE DOOR IS OPEN TO ANY CHANGE THAT LOOKS LIKE IT PROVIDES A CONSENSUAL IMPROVEMENT IN THE RELATIONSHIP THAT RESPONDS IN A WAY TO THE ABSENCE OF THE NTIA THAT MAKES THINGS ACCOUNTABLE AND SECURE AND OPERATIONAL. OR WHICHEVER BODY THAT MAY TAKE OVER. DOES ICG NEGOTIATING THAT PROPOSAL WITH ICANN BEFORE SUBMITTING TO NTIA OR DURING THE NTIA PROCESS." (emphasis added)


Follow @DomainMondo