Name: Avri Doria
Submission ID: 104

Attached is my individual comment on the ICG aggregated proposal.

These are personal comments by Avri Doria on the following topics:

Disposition of Intellectual Property and IANA domain names.
While I believe that from a Names perspective, it would be appropriate for ICANN to retain thetrademarks and relevant IANA domain names, I understand why this would not be the case for
Numbers and Protocols. For Names the Post Transition IANA (PTI) is the IANA Function
Operator (IFO), whereas for Numbers and Protocols ICANN remains the IFO. I accept that it isnot appropriate for the IFO itself to hold the trademarks and relevant domain names and thus
understand why Numbers and Protocols will not agree to ICANN holding the trademark anddomain names. This is a side effect of having compatible but different solutions for the 3
Operational Communities: Names, Numbers and Protocols.
If the IETF Trust is able to establish legal conditions that satisfy the need of the Names
community in its trust, then the IETF Trust is satisfactory for holding these trademarks andnames. On the other hand, if proper legal conditions for the protection of the Names community
rights and access to these trademarks and domain names cannot be established under theIETF Trust umbrella, then a new trust should be established for this specific purpose.

Compatible but different Operational Community solutions for IFO
While the 3 Operational Community (OC) plans are compatible I do not believe the aggregatedmodel with different approaches is an optimal solution. I believe this fault is an artifact of aproblematic approach to the transition by the ICG. I believe that a more integrated approachfacilitated by the ICG would have been preferable. The aggregated model put forward by theICG will probably work just fine, so I do not object, but I did want to register the concern andrequest implementation guidelines on cooperation among the Operational Communities.
As the discussion of the trademarks and domain names has shown, relatively simple differences
between the 3 Operational Communities can cause great confusion, fear and loathing. Theissue had to rise to crisis proportions before it was possible to find a relatively straightforward
solution. Had there been a defined method for interaction between the 3 OCs, the ‘sky is falling’
theatrics as well as angry accusatory discussions might have been avoided. I think this effectmay be seen again in the future if other differences of perspective stemming from the IANA
transition occur. Beyond this, the problematic effect may be triggered should we ever reach thepoint where one of the OCs decides to initiate its separation process. It is clear that any one of
the OCs moving away from the common IANA services will affect those that are not moving. Itis also possible that the issues that bother one of the OCs might even affect the other OCs andbe susceptible to a common solution, whether that be redress, repair or separation. There is,however, no current method for dealing with issues of shared relevance.

Had the 3 OCs been able to cooperate and work together toward a common interface with PTI
as the IFO, when future issues arise there would have been a commonality of approach. The
original design of the PTI was as a shared service entity with oversight by all relevant Operation
Communities: Names, Numbers and Protocols. This configuration, with all 3 communities
represented on the PTI board, would have provided greater accountability to the 3 OCs and tothe broader Internet community. It would have also provided a common forum for discussing
and dealing with emergent issues, like the exercise of an OC separation process..
I do not support the possible separation of the IFO, i.e.the IANA function, into separate OCIANA subfunctions. In fact I consider that a possible risk to the stability and security of theInternet. I see IANA, not any single directory, as the actual root of the Internet and am
concerned about possible inconsistencies that might develop were IANA to be split along theOC lines. I believe that the IANA function, and the PTI would be more stabile were all OC toparticipate in its oversight and believe that avoiding a split along OC lines may be more difficult
to avoid in the current model. In any case, under the aggregated model proposed by the ICG,communication and cooperation may be still be necessary.
Since there was no opportunity to use the coordinating services of the ICG to bring about
cooperation among the OCs, the PTI is left as a sole ‘subsidiary’ of ICANN, forcing a muchhigher degree of reliance on ICANN’s accountability measures, thus putting greater pressure onICANN Accountability Work Stream I. The Names portion of the ICG proposal is gated byadoption and implementation of an adequate solution for ICANN Accountability.
Be this all as it may be, as I stated above I think that the aggregated model under review willwork. I recommend, however, that the implementation phase include consideration of amechanism whereby representatives of the 3 OCs can communicate, confer and cooperate onissues of relevance to the IANA service without needing to first have an issue escalate into astate of crisis.