[Iana-transition] lanic update, ideas for new oversight board (MONC)

[Jason Schiller]

I think there is a lot of confusion here first wrt to making the policy
that the IANA operators follow and the oversight that the IANA operators
follow said policy and meet the appropriate SLAs.

 Secondly, I think there is much confusion wrt the term "ICANN".  Some
times people use ICANN to me the small group of people employed by ICANN
who perform the IANA operations, some times people mean the ICANN Board who
ratifies Global Number Policy, sometimes people mean the entire ICANN
community who discusses Domain Name concerns and such, and some time people
mean a combination of some or all of those pieces.

First let me say WRT Global Policy making, we have a very good process, per
the ASO MoU
<https://aso.icann.org/documents/memorandums-of-understanding/memorandum-of-understanding/>.
This does not change with NTIA stepping away.

What does change is the contract
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf>
between the NTIA and ICANN for the IANA functions.  This document has some
vague language about SLAs.  I understand the "real" SLAs are in this doc
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2012/icann-proposal>.

I already recommended (and David Huberman supported) step 1: we pull out
those SLAs and put them in a document.  And asked ARIN staff to start on
that work.  I'd like to ask the CRISP team, specifically Michael for a
status on this work, and for that doc to be posted here once compiled.

Step 2: We then need to decide what legal vehicle we should have, and who
should it be between.  Should it be an MoU, a contract for services of the
IANA function, or some other legal document?  And should it be between the
five RIRs and the portion of ICANN that currently performs the IANA
service?  Or the NRO, or the incorporated NRO? Should the document contain
the SLAs or reference the SLA document?

Step 3: We need to define a transparent process to review the monthly
performance of the ICANN operator and its (in)ability to meet the SLAs and
adhere to Global Policy.

Step 4: We need a process for declaring the operator of the IANA service
out of compliance.  We also need a process for actions taken due to
non-compliance including threatening to remove the contract, and removing
the contract.

Step 5: We need a process for modifying the SLAs.

Step 6: We need to ensure our processes include the appropriate community
interaction for reviewing the operations of IANA function, and how those
measurements are taken, declaration of (non-)compliance, and changes to SLA
metrics.

___Jason

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 2:07 PM, David Huberman <
David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> As someone who very much wants to see the addressing function taken away
> from ICANN and moved directly to the NRO, I'm not sure MONC is any more
> useful than the NRO self-governing. The NRO is, after all, strictly
> bottom-up.  RIR members elect board members. RIR board members select a
> CEO.  The CEOs run the NRO.  There's accountability up and down the chain.
>
> My question is how do we leverage the NTIA's desire to step back to
> dissolve the MOU between USGOV and ICANN wrt the clause, "Establishment of
> policy for and direction of the allocation of IP number blocks;"
>
> David
>
> David R Huberman
> Microsoft Corporation
> Principal, Global IP Addressing
>
> [1] https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/icann-mou-1998-11-25-en
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>



-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141110/2bb2068f/attachment.html>