[Internal-cg] Combined Proposal Assessment by Xiaodong Lee

[Xiaodong Lee]

Dear Colleagues,
Please check my assessment.
Proposal title: Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce
Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community
Reviewer Name: Xiaodong Lee
Date review was completed: July 14, 2015 at Beijing Time

A.     Compatibility and interoperability

1.     Do the proposals work together in a single proposal?
Yes, all proposals follow the RFP structure with readable components and
sections; together they offer a very clear picture of the transition of the
three major IANA functions.
2.     Do they suggest any incompatible arrangements where compatibility
appears to be required?
No real incompatibility is foreseen. Only as three communities reach
different decisions regarding the identity of the IANA Function Operator
(IFO), I believe efforts to facilitate further communication and
coordination should be undertaken by the affected communities at present in
preparation for implementation.
 3.     Is the handling of any conflicting overlaps between the functions
resolved in a workable manner?
No real conflicting overlaps are identified. The arrangements mentioned
above require further communication and coordination.
B.    Accountability
 1.     Do the proposals together include appropriate and properly supported
independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA function?
 Not completely.
 Numbering and protocol parameter proposals have included appropriate
accountability mechanisms with the vision of NTIA’s absence and are properly
supported.
The proposal of the naming community is not yet completed with a dependence
on the mechanisms for the accountability of ICANN that are being developed
in the CCWG-Accountability.  I can’t say it’s properly supported until this
work is stable.
2.     Are there any gaps in overall accountability under the single
proposal?
The picture I get so far is that numbering and protocol parameter will rely
on the independent contractual arrangements and review mechanism to keep the
service accountable while the naming service will be under the oversight of
ICANN’s accountability mechanism.
Since responsibilities are carefully delineated in three proposals and there
is no shared responsibility for a single registry across multiple
organizations, there will be no gap exists in overall accountability
provided that every service is kept accountable to its customers. Even so,
coordination and communication are required for the IANA functions as a
whole to satisfy the needs of the IANA users.
C.    Workability
Do the results of any tests or evaluations of workability that were included
in the component proposals conflict with each other or raise possible
concerns when considered in combination?
As was mentioned above, it is observed that both Internet Number and
Protocol Parameter communities’ proposals call for ICANN to continue as the
IFO by means of a service level agreement or MOU, and thus rely upon the
contractual measures with ICANN for oversight of the provision of services.
On the other hand, however, naming community chooses to rely upon the
proposed PTI separation from ICANN for provision of IANA naming services and
to enhance ICANN’s accountability mechanisms for oversight of PTI.
The question here is if the formation of PTI would result in non-naming IANA
functions also being moved into PTI? If the answer is no, there will be a
need to separate the existing IANA department, operations and assets into
parts. In this case, concern is likely to be raised:
1. Even if responsibilities are carefully delineated in three proposals,
IANA function is an organic whole and changes to one function may have
impact on the operation of the other functions. Therefore, the separation of
the operational assets raises a problem about how do three functions
interoperate and interact with each other to keep the stability of the IANA
function.
2.  As is known, IANA department within ICANN is relatively small, the
separation raise another concern regarding complementarities and economies
in the provision of these services across names, numbers and protocols that
deserve our attention and discussion as an implementation issue.
3. If the case is to separate only the names-related functions to PTI,
ICANN’s role as IFO for numbering and Protocol parameter continues while
serving as the oversight body for another IFO (PTI), the feasibility and
rational of that need to be discussed and made clear to the community.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150714/d751f053/attachment.html>