RFP 3 (14:00 - 15:40 local time)

---

Notes & Action Items

 

Introductory session

Presenting a blank document with just the "headings" of the strawman proposal. Utimately, the group will need to fill out the elements in the blank document. For now, going back to the filled-out matrix. 

• "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
• RySG -- important for RySG is that accountability be in place before transition
• Separability is needed now, not necessarily separation 
• What are we trying to acheive, and can we acheive it without actual separation?

What is separability?

• What we understand as separability is that the IANA function can be given to someone else
• What the subgroup has been working with as a definition of separability is the ability to remove the IANA functions operator from ICANN at any point in time
• Cannot discuss this outside of the context (can be crucial in Strawman 1, but maybe not at all in need for other proposals)

What is the pragmatic (short-term) approach of what we want to achieve? What is the long-term approach?

• We need to be concious of what we can do over the next 2 days. Primary focus is to keep steady, using existing strcutres where we can. Keep this simple. 
• How far does this discussion of separability need to go? Do they have separate copy machines, etc? 
  • No,  this is extreme. If we go down this point 

 

Status of IANA Functions Operator

Perhaps we can consider checks&balances before, since if we have those, we may not need to discuss sesparation regarding realtion oversight body and IANA function

We need to be careful to not add/institutionalize something that doesn't necessarily need to continue

 

Deletions:

4a from Strawman 3: Is there support for IANA being a totally separate? No, so let's eliminate that element 4a from Strawman 3. 

 

Model that allows for legal separation in future if needed, cost is one aspect political side as well. Think of how it will be viewd from outside.

 

What would rationale for having IANA seperated?

• To date no rationale, but has to be looked into.
• What need will seperate org will address.
•  Origin of model may come from the New Zealand model, (seperation of policy and operations)
• Complexity and cost at level of IANA, no rationale at this stage.
• Effect of subsidiary can be substantial, but not the rationale. Real benefit: optics
• Emphasize the importance of how fragile the universal Internet -- a separate entity performing this simple task (status quo) will give people the idea that we are on the part to limiting the universal Internet

 

Moving out could be an attribute

 

Background could be:

- mistrust

- accountability

- control of function 

- political signficance of location 

 

Strawman 4 presents the closest one to current status. 

ALAC conducted a survey before Strawman 4 came out. The ALAC survey showed preference for Strawman 1.

 

Additions: 

Assign budget for IANA operationa staff (that allows IANA to operate independently)

 

Composition of Oversight Body

The question is not "what does NTIA do?" 

Look at Root scaling report

 

NTIA has an OFAC related role

We should not underestimate the oversight role that also has accountability implications.  

Committees in Strawman 1&2 are not necessarily committees of ICANN

 

General remarks re Matrix document

Note original strawman's (Strawman 1, 2 and 3) were produced as logical models

Color coding method: 

• Red- no suppport
• Yellow - some support

 

Action Items

Jaap: to send out refrence to section in Root scaling report ///  ***COMPLETE: jaap akkerhuis SSAC: NTIA rolle in the Root service change process is decsribed in Section 4.2.3 "Change rocessing" in the Root Scling report "root-scaling-study-report-31aug09-en.pdf".

Transcript

The transcript is available here: MeetingF2F_Session3_19Nov.doc

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5r29b6jv0j/

The audio recording is available here: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/pgm1fhssu9a45uj8vvlr.mp3

Documents Presented

Strawman Matrix-skeleton.docx

StrawmanMatrix (with comments) 17 Nov.docx

Chat Transcript

Grace Abuhamad:*** LUNCH BREAK *** 12:00 - 13:00 UTC (13:00 - 14:00 local time)

  Grace Abuhamad:We're back!

  Grace Abuhamad:Link to Google Doc version of this matrix: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kO8dtSdkTnH79FSUsxA8KmPv1O2IfYwYFm2k_CIoNMw/edit

  Wale Bakare:Hi

  Wale Bakare:Hi everyone

  Gary Campbell:Good day all

  Robert Guerra:I think it would be useful to mention the sections that refer to. In this case, say we are removing/eliminating 4a. Independant entity

  matthew shears (CDT):surely we would want the ability to reove the contract (as NTIA can do) and that does not require subsidiary or division?  what is IANA's structural form at the moment in ICANN?

  Geetha Hariharan:Some background: A subsidiary generally also has a different Board of Directors from the parent company. This means that technically, the subsidiary is independent of the parent company's decisions. US law may, however, be different. Balance sheets may be consolidated by parent company in some jurisdictions, however (such as India).

  Alan Greenberg:I can live with a separate subsidiary if it truly makes for bertter optics. but I don't see any other benefit.

  matthew shears (CDT):this is a contract betweeb NTIA and ICANN - shouldn't we continue to deal with it as such?

  Robert Guerra:what i mean to say, is lets talk about the attribites we are looking for

  Amr Elsadr:I don't see the benefit in a subsidiary either. Not sure it serves any real purpose.

  Robert Guerra:and see if that can be accomodated in the "division" model

  Amr Elsadr:@Robert: I like the approach of trying to determine what it is we want, then determining what models would make this achievable.

  Amr Elsadr:@Robert: So that was a +1.

  Sivasubramanian M:In Switzerland, is there a legal stautus for a Company  or Trust that is "not incorporated"

  Sivasubramanian M:?

  Sivasubramanian M:not incorporated,  not registered, but can such an organization still have a legal status in switzerland?

  Wale Bakare:Hi Amr

  Amr Elsadr:Hi Wale. :)

  Amr Elsadr:@Sivasubramanian: Is there a need to create an organization with a legal status? Is there a purpose that would serve?

  Allan MacGillivray:I am not sure what a location in Switzerland would achieve.  If it is about escaping the authority of the US Congress, then IANA would simply be trading US jurisdiction for Swiss jurisdiction, so it wouls be subejct to the Swiss legistature.

  Sivasubramanian M:@Amr   I am merely thinking aloud. Not going into the question of whether there is a need to create an organization with a legal status or not.  If we create an organization, if we do not incorporate or register it as a full fledged corporation, would it still have a legal status, in Switzerland, in a few other alternate locations? In US ?

  Amr Elsadr:OK. Got you.

  Brenden Kuerbis:Good point, not sure we need specify the legal form of Operator. Rather we want to ensure that the asset they manage (zone DB) can be removed.

  Alan Greenberg:Jonathan is correct. companies buy businesses all the time, even if they are not a formal subsidiary. All it takes ia a goo d laywer and bueiness analyst.

  Amr Elsadr:@Brenden: +1.

  Geetha Hariharan:@Alan: Could you explain how that is helpful here? Hiving off or buying businesses is an internal decision within one company, while a subsidiary is a separate company from the parent.

  Guru Acharya:+1 Matthew

  Geetha Hariharan:@Alan: In structural separation, is not the independence of the subsidiary in question?

  Wale Bakare:@Sivasubramanian, i think your concerns have been the crux of this proposal vis-a-vis Strawmen/Matrix

  Sivasubramanian M:@Wale  I saw some mention of this possibility of an unregisterd company in the matrix.. That is what prompted my question

  Sivasubramanian M:It is an interesting thought, could lead to a creative solution if pursued

  Wale Bakare:@Sivasubramanian, i can see sense in that too

  Sivasubramanian M:If it is feasible to have some legitimacy for an unreigsterd company or unregistered Trust, then we can think of a very smooth way forward into Iana Transition.  

  Sivasubramanian M:Steps:  1. Form an unregistered Trust, with an IGC style of composition of "Trustees" of the Trust,  base it in US or Switzerland or elsewhere where it would get just the right amount of legitimacy, and Transfer to the Trust practically everything that  NTIA is doing at the moment, without changes

  Sivasubramanian M:Step 2  Bring under the Trust any new oversight function in the wish list

  Sivasubramanian M:Step 3 Remove any unnecessary component

  Sivasubramanian M:As we go, we will look at more complicated questions such as role of GAC advise, more external advisors etc

  Sivasubramanian M:What is editing in suggest mode?  

  Kurt Pritz:What is the standard that the current "woman in the middle" uses now -- to where every request has been granted?

  Guru Acharya:+1

  Amr Elsadr:Can those free standing committees sign SLAs with an IANA operator?

  jaap akkerhuis SSAC:NTIA rolle in the Root service change process is decsribed in Section 4.2.3 "Change rocessing" in the Root Scling report "root-scaling-study-report-31aug09-en.pdf".

  Malcolm Hutty:Good question Amr. May turn out to be determinative

  Grace Abuhamad:@Jaap thank you. Added to the notes

  Kurt Pritz:If the Board disagrees with IANA - it is not because they have gone "rogue" - it is because they are providing advice to consider as the root zonne change request is weighed

  matthew shears (CDT):Not sure why whatever structure is decided upon it cannot and should not be subject to ICANN Board decisions

  Kurt Pritz:on rare occassions, the Board has provided sound advice that IANA could consider

  matthew shears (CDT):oops - meant why should it be subject to the ICANN Board?