[Internal-cg] Way forward/Proposal to extend the ICG charter

[Daniel Karrenberg]

I remain extremely skeptical about this for the reasons I have explained
earlier. Those in favor should propose concrete language for a revised
charter. This language should describe and limit the proposed purview
and actions of the group as well as specify the point in time when this
group will disband.

Daniel

On 8.10.15 13:13 , Narelle Clark wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> in our face to face meeting in LA, we decided to defer the discussion
> regarding what role — if any — the ICG should play during the
> implementation phase of the transition. Alissa also kicked off the
> discussion on the list. Here are some of my thoughts to guide us through
> to Dublin.
> 
> In the comments submitted to the ICG, the Internet Society pointed out:
> 
> “We would like to draw attention to the need for timely resolution of
> outstanding issues with regards to the implementation of the various
> processes, mechanisms and rules that relate to IANA. Details related to
> the structure of the new Post-Transition IANA (PTI) and the various
> bodies supporting it (e.g. CSC, IFR, etc.), implementation aspects of
> the CCWG proposal (as it relates to IANA), a plan to successfully
> conclude the SLAs, and a resolution of IANA-related intellectual
> property rights have yet to be fully fleshed out. We urge the community
> to determine:
> 
> ·         How these implementation details will be addressed in a timely
> fashion to the satisfaction of all communities in a way that continues
> to meet the principles set forth by NTIA; and,
> 
> ·         How all the communities will remain involved in the
> implementation of the new structure in an appropriate manner.”
> 
> There is no denying the fact that a major part of the transition is
> implementation. I would like to argue that a sound transition
> implementation process is actually as important as having a complete and
> robust proposal. At this stage I do not believe we have one.
> 
> A major part of the transition is oversight: the system that ultimately
> replaces the oversight of the US government. I think we all agree that
> as a group we are responsible for ensuring that the IANA functions
> continue to operate in a reliable, stable and predictable way. This
> means a design that is able to deliver and meet the expectations and
> needs of the IANA customers. I do not believe that this is achieved
> simply by saying that we have a full proposal, when there is clearly a
> gap arising from the status of the accountability model.
> 
> As this group has repeatedly discussed, what the current proposal
> foresees is that, for the purposes of the IETF and the RIRs, ICANN will
> continue to operate as the IFO; ICANN, would therefore subcontract this
> responsibility to a new PTI. The names community will contract directly
> with PTI. So, in effect, PTI will be the entity responsible for
> maintaining and operating the IANA functions. PTI, however, is a new
> entity that will have to be established from scratch.
> 
> And here is the gap.
> 
> Were the US government to sign off on the transition and with the
> various groups — IANAPlan, CRISP and CWG (the latter disbanded) — who
> will make sure that the setting up of PTI and the various supporting
> bodies is done in a manner that ensures the stability of the system? How
> can we — as the Internet community — ensure that the new system supports
> the ongoing performance of IANA?
> 
> I think that there is a role for us. This body is the only one currently
> in existence that is fully representative of the communities and one
> that would not have the learning curve.
> 
> We all have a vested interest in ensuring that IANA continues to operate
> the way it does today — i.e. without any interruptions or issues of
> stability. I am not suggesting that we should micromanage the
> implementation process — rather that we could perhaps take the role of
> some sort of an advisory body that will meet and intervene if and when
> it considers that the implementation details fail to meet the standards
> of performance expected for IANA. Indeed, to provide a form of oversight.
> 
> I am aware that this raises issues with our charter, however, given how
> lightweight the approach I am suggesting should be, this would require
> nothing more than a minor adjustment. This would only need to be in
> place until such time as PTI exists and back-to-back contracts (between
> the IETF, RIRs, ICANN and PTI) are in place.
> 
>  
> 
> Of course, the community would need to be in support of such a thing,
> and a period of public comment would be called for.
> 
> The situation at present is to my mind more than a little serious. I
> would therefore like to ask you to consider this in good faith.
> 
> What I am suggesting is a very light weight and high level engagement
> plan that will allow us to see through this transition. We all know just
> how important this is, and the need for careful, cross-community
> oversight until the entire system is in place.
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards 
> 
>  
> 
> Narelle 
> 
> 
> --
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Narelle Clark
> Director of Operations - Deputy CEO
> *Australian Communications *
> 
> *Consumer Action Network*
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>