Name: Simeon Foreman

Organization: Nominet UK

Submission ID: 47

Please find attached response from Nominet UK on the ICG Consultation on IANA
Stewardship Transition Proposal.

Simeon Foreman
Head of Governance and Company SecretaryNominetwww.nominet.org.uk-----

IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal - Public Comment Form
Disclaimer: The ICG will not use the information collected for any purpose other than analyzing publiccomments. Submitters’ names, affiliations, and comments will be public.

Identifying Information* Indicates required field

First Name *EleanorLast Name *Bradley

Email Address *REDACTEDCountry/Economy

United Kingdom - UK

Organization

NominetUK
Nominet is the .uk Internet domain name registry. It also operates the.wales & .cymru and a number of brand gTLDs. As such it is a direct
customer for the IANA naming function services.
Nominet is a member of the ccNSO. As a company we have been activein the work of the cross-community working group on IANA stewardshiptransition for naming-related functions, and have followed carefully thediscussions of the cross-community working group for enhancing ICANN
accountability.
The following comments have been approved by Nominet’s Board andare submitted by Eleanor Bradley, Chief Operations Officer on behalf ofthe company.

Questions Concerning the Proposal as a Whole1)

Completeness and clarity: Is the combined proposal complete? Each of the operational
community proposals contains aspects to be completed in the future when the proposal
is implemented. Is the combined proposal specified in sufficient detail such that it can beevaluated against the NTIA criteria?

We believe that the combined proposal is essentially complete, but there are details that need tobe finalised. These are recognised in the document:
ICANN accountability: The completeness of the naming-related functions proposal issubject to the work of a separate cross-community working group on mechanisms toenhance ICANN’s accountability (CCWG-Accountability) and this work is currently also
going through consultation. While we believe that the cross-community working on naming-related functions (CWG-Stewardship) has identified the mechanisms that it needs from theCCWG-Accountability, the ICG should seek assurance from the CWG-Stewardship that its
requirements are met, once the final CCWG-Accountability proposal is published.
Service Levels
oThe three communities recognise the importance of establishing service levels tomonitor the performance of the IANA functions operator. We welcome this and fully
support the concept in the names and protocol parameter proposals for the community
to work with the operator to ensure that service level expectations are met.

oAs noted in paragraph 54, there is ongoing work on developing Service Level
Expectations for the names functions. We agree with the statement that “the ongoingwork must be completed” and would like this to be done “before the proposal is sent tothe NTIA.” However, we believe that this could be finalised during the implementation
phase of the proposal, and we would note that there needs to be an agreed mechanism
to reassess and update service level agreements in the future. This should be in place
before final transition.

oWe would note that service level commitments can have a direct impact on the cost ofproviding the service and should therefore be evidence based and respond to the needsof the customer community.

IANA Trademarks and Domain Names: The ICANN Board announcement on themanagement of the IANA trademarks and domain names opens the way for a consensusbased solution. We would note that the holder of this IPR should do so in the interests of
the operational communities and should grant any necessary rights for the free use of theresources to the IANA functions operator(s) selected by the community to provide thisservice.

All of the proposals appear to accept the status quo for jurisdiction. We believe that, at least forthe present, this is appropriate: we do not think that there is currently any consensus on achange of jurisdiction as part of this proposal. However, we recognise and accept that furtheranalysis of the benefits of different jurisdictions could be useful, based on operational interestsand benefits. We would oppose any change of jurisdiction that limited the IANA functions
operator(s) liability for the decisions or action that it takes or that changed the framework for
decisions that affected operational integrity.
In particular, we welcome the clear statements in the names proposal about the national
jurisdiction of ccTLDs and we would not wish to see this undermined.

2)

Compatibility and interoperability: Do the operational community proposals work together
in a single proposal? Do they suggest any incompatible arrangements wherecompatibility appears to be required? Is the handling of any conflicting overlaps between
the functions resolved in a workable manner?

While the three community responses adopt slightly different approaches to oversight of theIANA functions operation, we do not see any incompatibilities between the proposals (subject tofinalising a consensus approach for dealing with the IANA IPR).

Without wanting to undermine any of the proposals or to limit accountability or enforcement
action, there may be value in ensuring liaison or communication channels between theoperational communities to share information about operational issues or decisions (including
any proposals for retendering the operator role for one of the IANA functions).

3)

Accountability: Do the operational community proposals together include appropriate
and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA
functions? Are there any gaps in overall accountability under the single proposal?

The three proposals are rooted in the separate operational communities. This is important as
the direct customers of the critical IANA functions operation rely on accurate, timely andpredictable performance by the IANA functions operator. In particular, it is important that theIANA functions operator is directly answerable to its immediate customers.
All three communities have involved their wider multi-stakeholder networks, which were involvedin the proposal-development process. The communities all appear to have followed openprocesses. Through these processes they have developed proposals with accountability
directly relevant to the different IANA functions.
In particular, we welcome that non-affected third parties do not have a say over operational
decisions affecting domain name registries.
The proposals also include an important oversight role, less operationally focussed that includes
mechanisms that should ensure the IANA functions operation’s global accountability.

4)

Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of workability that were included in
the operational community proposals conflict with each other or raise possible concerns
when considered in combination?

We welcome the fact that the three proposals have adopted existing structures as much as
possible and have focussed on the transition solely of the stewardship functions. We believethat all three allow for further evolutionary change post-transition based on operational
experience and on future developments. It is good practice to avoid unnecessary change in theinterests of the security, stability and resilience of the service.

Questions Concerning NTIA Criteria
5)

Do you believe the proposal supports and enhances the multistakeholder model? If yes,please explain why. If not, please explain why and what proposal modifications you
believe are necessary.

Yes: the processes have drawn on a wide range of stakeholders, been open to widerinvolvement and have worked in a respectful and consensus-building manner. This has
perhaps been the first real test of the multi-stakeholder model working together to makedecisions on such important and complex issues, and we believe that engagement in thedevelopment of the three proposals has been exemplary.

Of particular importance is that all of the proposals have built in appropriate mechanisms toassure overall accountability to the wider community. Under the names proposal, this is done
through a regular multi-stakeholder review process. We believe that the numbers proposal
adopts a similar approach, but that the accountability is through the operators’ accountability totheir own communities. The protocol parameters proposal is rooted in the IETF and its existingand open networks.
We note that the proposals are limited to the oversight of the operational (technical and clerical)
functions associated with the IANA functions operation. This recognises that the communities
have their own open and multi-stakeholder processes for establishing policies underpinning theIANA functions and that these processes do not form part of the transition discussion: keeping
the policy roles separate is important, relying on the community processes appropriate for thenature of the function.

6)

Do you believe the proposal maintains the security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS?
If yes, please explain why. If not, please explain why and what proposal modifications
you believe are necessary.

Yes: the proposals are cautious in introducing change only where it is necessary, while allowing
for future evolution, should this be necessary. They do not introduce any “gatekeepers” andcollective engagement based on existing fora will help ensure that there is minimal risk ofcapture.
In particular, the front-line monitoring (and, in the case of the names functions, remedial action)role of the operational communities is the responsibility of the direct customers, which have astrong interest in the successful performance of the IANA functions operation. This provides agood basis for maintaining and assuring satisfaction in the quality of service in the future.
This active involvement, we believe, will help ensure the continued security, stability andresilience of the DNS.

7)

Do you believe the proposal meets the needs and expectations of the global customersand partners of the IANA services? If yes, please explain why. If not, please explain why
and what proposal modifications you believe are necessary. Please indicate if you are acustomer or partner of the IANA services.

Yes: the proposals do not add any additional requirements on the global customers and will
maintain (for example) the principles that ccTLDs do not need to join ICANN to benefit from theIANA service, do not need to enter any form of contractual relationship and are not obliged topay for the service. The names proposal also makes clear the national jurisdiction associatedwith ccTLDs.
The front-line role for direct customers in monitoring and improving service quality, the clear
requirement for IANA functions operation decisions to be based on properly agreed policy (sodecisions should be predictable and non-discriminatory) and the avoidance of any gatekeepers
in the process, as well as the open and transparent processes should all ensure that the IANA
functions operation will remain trusted.

8)

Do you believe the proposal maintains the openness of the Internet? If yes, please
explain why. If not, please explain why and what proposal modifications you believe arenecessary.

Yes: the absence of gatekeepers, the openness of processes (and their regular review) andembedding multi-stakeholder oversight engagement in existing open (and recognised)communities should ensure that there is no discriminatory action that would limit the opennessof the Internet.
We would also note that the CCWG-Accountability work will have an impact in guaranteeing thatnames-related policies do not impact the openness of the Internet.

9)

Do you have any concerns that the proposal is replacing NTIA's role with a governmentled or inter-governmental organization solution? If yes, please explain why and what
proposal modifications you believe are necessary. If not, please explain why.

No: the nature of the multi-stakeholder processes includes the involvement of governments, but(as for any other stakeholder group) does not give them a dominant voice. In particular, the lackof any gatekeeper roles and the consensus framework underpinning the multi-stakeholder
model will make it hard for any group take control of the IANA functions operation.

10)

Do you believe that the implementation of the proposal will continue to uphold the NTIA
criteria in the future? If yes, please explain why. If not, please explain why and what
proposal modifications you believe are necessary.

Yes: there has been good consensus throughout the processes on the NTIA principles and themodels are strongly anchored around them. Any changes would have to gain reasonable
consensus in the multi-stakeholder community and we do not believe that any proposal toremove any of the principles would be able to command such support.

Questions Concerning ICG Report and Executive Summary11)

Do you believe the ICG report and executive summary accurately reflect all necessary
aspects of the overall proposal? If not, please explain what modifications you believe arenecessary.

Yes.

General Questions12)

Do you have any general comments for the ICG about the proposal?

We greatly welcome the process launched by the NTIA’s 14 March 2014 announcement.

The NTIA has, over the years, performed an exemplary and honest job and it is important tomaintain a similar level of good governance of the IANA functions operation in the future.
We would also recognise the overall satisfaction in the current performance of ICANN in its roleas IANA functions operator and again would see this as a benchmark going forward.
The announcement marked a significant milestone in the development of multi-stakeholder
engagement in the operation of the domain name system, recognising the maturity of the model.
We note that NTIA asked Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal detailing how best toremove NTIA’s administrative role associated with root zone management: the proposal is at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root zone administrator proposalrelatedtoiana functionsste-final.pdf. The CWG-Stewardship proposal has identified its position
on incorporating a proposal for root-zone management: the operational communities should
now be requested to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal meets their requirements.