[LACNIC/Politicas] concerns regarding the IANA IP addressing function in the transition process

[Carlos A. Afonso]

Dear compas,

I think this is a relevant policy issue, related to the IANA transition.

As some of you recall, I am one of the [few so far] ones who advocates a
formalization of the role RIRs+NRO have in the governance of the IANA
functions. I actually tried to advance this proposition in my article in
the book produced by the WGIG in 2007 (!) -- perhaps too early...

But now there is this stewardship transition initiated by the US gov
itself, and I reaffirm my proposal that the IANA function dealing with
IP addressing governance should be formally passed on to NRO at the
operational/coordination level.

Some people think this is "complicated", quoting a number of hurdles --
among them, because either [1] it would require a change in the Icann
bylaws (I am not sure of this, but if so, so what?) or [2] while RIRs
are "membership organizations", Icann is not (so what? maybe it is way
past time Icann should become one as well, getting rid of the infamous
nominating committee to begin with -- but I am not sure this is a
problem either).

In practice, NRO (or the set of RIRs) is already coordinating this IANA
function. Icann could remain the policy lightweight oversight
organization for this function. I think something similar could be
thought regarding ccTLDs, with the current ccTLD structures (LACTLD,
CENTR etc) taking over the operational/coordinating role -- although in
this case we have a very diverse world and this would require a
different approach, fully respecting the autonomy of each ccTLD. But if
things can be worked out in this way, Icann would remain the
coordinating realm of gTLDs only, while also remaining the lightweight
oversight policy body for all other IANA functions -- provided
accountability and transparency issues are properly addressed. Maybe at
the end ASO and ccNSO would no longer make much sense.

All this said, Milton Mueller provides a disappointing account of how
NRO/RIRs seem to be handling the IANA transition process. I asked him to
authorize me to reproduce his message (originally posted to the ARIN
list) expressing his concerns.

Hope to read your comments.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

--- message from Milton Mueller to ARIN, on Sept.08, 2014 ---

A bit off topic, but possibly of interest to the members here interested
in the IANA transition. It seems the RIRs are not taking seriously the
requirement for the IANA process to be open and transparent.

Milton L Mueller
Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/

From: Milton L Mueller
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM
To: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)
Subject: IANA transition and the risk of a failed RIR process

Today the IANA stewardship coordination group (ICG)
[https://www.icann.org/stewardship/coordination-group] released a
request for proposals for changing the IANA in ways needed to compensate
for the end of US government oversight.

I am assuming that since the RIRs were signatories to the Montevideo
Declaration, which called for globalization of the IANA functions, that
most of their members and participants support the IANA transition and
want to see it happen expeditiously.

The ICG, of which I am a member, has proposed a very open and bottom up
method for the transition. It has broken the problem down into three
types of IANA ‘customers’ – names, numbers and protocols – and has asked
each of these operational communities to convene open, transparent
processes to develop proposals with widespread public support for a new
IANA that can function without oversight by the US government.

The IETF has convened a reasonably open process, creating a mailing list
(ianaplan at ietf.org) and chartering a working group to develop a proposal
[https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ianaplan/charter/].

Likewise, the names community has chartered a cross-community working
group
[https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/draft-charter-ccwg-iana-stewardship-21aug14-en.pdf],
led by the GNSO and CCNSO, to develop a names proposal.

I am sorry to report that ARIN and the NRO have not risen to this
challenge yet. We have not seen any call for input about how to convene
an open process – something which is _required_ by both NTIA and the ICG.

The RIR’s proposed “process” for developing a proposal has  never been
discussed among the ARIN Advisory Council, nor has it been announced or
raised on the ARIN PPML. There was never a discussion as to whether the
process should be convened at the global level or at the regional level.
No mailing list for general discussion of that specific topic has been
convened by the RIRs as a whole. The web page ARIN has thrown together
about the transition does not describe or propose a process
[http://teamarin.net/education/internet-governance/iana-globalization].
There seem to be no methods for interested stakeholders to submit
proposals for the IANA transition to the RIR community, and no plans for
receiving public comment about their draft proposal.

Instead, the assumption seems to be that ARIN, and APNIC and other RIRs,
will collect random “input” from poorly publicized face to face sessions
at their regional meetings, and then their staff will decide what the
proposal will be. There seem to be no plans for collating and analyzing
that input. There are not even plans for opening the RIRs proposals to
public omment.

Even worse than ARIN’s vacuum, APNIC has started off its ”consultation”
process by putting in front of the community the staff’s own view as to
how the new IANA should look, which calls into question the neutrality
of the process.

These process failings make the RIR’s proposed transition proposal
extremely vulnerable to challenge. Any aspect of the IANA transition
that cannot demonstrate a fair process and broad support from across the
spectrum of stakeholder groups is likely to attract criticism and to
fail the NTIA’s test. I am urging the RIRs to wake up and take this
transition process more seriously. In my opinion, the following criteria
need to be met before the RIRs can claim to have run a legitimate process:

1)      There must be a global, open mailing list devoted specifically
to the numbers part of the IANA transition. Not existing regional lists.

2)      The draft proposal developed jointly by the RIRs must explicitly
respond to public input

3)      The final proposal developed jointly by the RIRs must be subject
to public comment on a global basis before it is submitted to the ICG

Milton L Mueller
Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/