[Internal-cg] Questions from webinars

Martin Boyle Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk
Wed Aug 12 15:27:38 UTC 2015


On the first question below, while I prefer the approach of Milton's response, I do have a concern.  I actually think that the PTI budget will need to be agreed each year and ICANN will be held to pay the required budget.  So I do not think that (except in the first year, perhaps) the funding level will be specified in the contract, but rather the commitment to fund the PTI's agreed budget is in place.

Looking at the CWG's proposal (paragraph 163 on page 32 of their final draft) is clear about this, "that PTI should develop and annually update a four-year strategic plan, which should outline strategic priorities, while PTI should also have a yearly budget that is reviewed by the ICANN community. A fully approved budget should be developed on an annual basis."

So I would suggest the opening sentence should read, "PTI and ICANN will have a contract, and the process for setting the funding level for PTI's operations will be specified in this contract."

Not being familiar with the gTLD world, could you explain to me what "... registrars who use the IANA functions" means?

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L
Sent: 12 August 2015 14:19
To: Lynn St.Amour; IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars

Lynn

I have problems with some of your proposed answers.  

On payment for PTI you wrote:

A:  The PTI will be funded just as it is today.  ICANN currently performs the IANA functions, but collects no specific fees for them.  ICANN does collect fees from ICANN-accredited gTLD registries and registrars, and some ccTLD registries, which in turn funds the IANA functions.

This is not correct, or at least I hope it is not. I would suggest:

A: PTI and ICANN will have a contract, and the funding level for PTI's operations will be specified in this contract. This will make the costs associated with supporting IANA functions more open and explicit. ICANN will support these costs out of its budget, which is based on its collection of fees from contracted registries and registrars who use the IANA functions, and from some ccTLD registries and Regional Internet Registries that make contributions to ICANN.

On the US government influence question, your answer really ducks the question imho and we can ill afford to be perceived as ducking this sensitive issue. You wrote: 

A: There is not "a single" transfer or "a single" transition of the IANA Stewardship responsibility (that is, the oversight role).   That responsibility occurs across the three Operating Communities where it has largely lived anyway.  Those varied processes (and the OC's themselves) are open, inclusive, multi-stakeholder, and they follow consensus policies developed by their communities.   It is these characteristics and the very global participation that will help ensure fairness. 

I frankly don't see how that answers the question. I would suggest:

A: The IANA transition completely eliminates the US Government's role as the contracting authority over the IANA functions, as well as its approval authority over all DNS root zone changes. Thus, the US government no longer has any unique or special authority over this aspect of Internet governance. 

On the jurisdiction question, I have discussed this several times with people in India and Brazil and think I understand pretty well what the concern is and would propose this:

Q: As the legal jurisdiction in which ICANN resides is to remain unchanged, and the PTI will also be incorporated in the US, does this mean there is effectively no change to the role of the US Government?

A: No. As noted before, the US government no longer has root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN. While ICANN and PTI are still jurisdictionally based in California, its policies, bylaws and governance practices will be shaped by its board members, community accountability mechanisms, supporting organizations, and advisory committees. These entities which are composed of people and organizations from all over the world. 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of 
> Lynn St.Amour
> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 11:58 PM
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars
> 
> Here for your review... possible additional FAQ questions.
> 
> Look forward to your comments/edits.  Will also post on Dropbox under 
> "FAQ".
> 
> Best,
> Lynn


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



More information about the Internal-cg mailing list