Name: Santosh Jha

Organization: India

Submission ID: 131

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am attaching herewith India’s comments on the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal ofthe ICG for which the deadline is today, 8 September 2015.

Warm regards,

Santosh Jha
Joint Secretary (Policy Planning & Research, Counter Terrorism-Cyber Security)
Ministry of External Affairs
Room No.- 161-B, South Block,
New Delhi-110011
Tel. REDACTED
Fax. REDACTED

IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal: Call for Public Comment
Submission by India
India appreciates the efforts of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination
Group (ICG) for all its work leading to the second draft proposal of mechanism for theTransition of the IANA Functions and also to enhance ICANN accountability. The intentof transition of IANA function to Global Multi-stakeholder Community is a welcome
move. India broadly supports the proposal in principle for the IANA Transition.
2. The ICG proposal outlines the principal functions of IANA Transition from NTIA to
the multi-stakeholder community. However, the details and its implementation plan do not seem tohave been worked out as yet. The success of the transition plan would depend upon thedetails and implementation plan so as to achieve a truly global multi-stakeholder
governance of the Internet.
3.
The structure outlined in the proposal recommends creation of anew Post Transition IANA entity (PTI) as a subsidiary of ICANN, which would thencontract PTI to perform IANA functions. PTI would deal with the names function.
Operationally, very little would change. However, there would be a new multistakeholder IANA function review process on a periodic basis. In addition, there will bea Customer Standing Committee (CSC) with Members from different communities underICANN. Practically, no change has been proposed in respect of the numbers andprotocol functions. However, there will be two IFOs. The IANA Transition process would
be complex and need to be transparent and based on consensus approach. For thesuccessful transition, it would be necessary to simplify the process and automate with arigorous workflow so as to have a clear transparent understanding of the entire process.
4.
The ICG proposal provides that the IANA Function Review process (IFR) canrecommend a separation process that could result in termination or non-extension ofthe ICANN and PTI contract and may impact certain implementation level linkages between
the operational communities. Such termination or non-renewal may also affect the functionsof PTI in relation to the other two operational communities namely numbers andprotocols. The recommendation of IANA function operations may thus lead to issues related tocompatibility and interoperability as well as security and stability of the Root
Zone environment. The proposal should, therefore, provide for steps and safeguards tobe taken to ensure that coordination is maintained between ICANN and PTI for
successful implementation and its sustainability, keeping in view the expansion ofInternet and technological innovations.
5.
The ICG proposal needs to take into account the expanding role of Internet andinnovations taking place in this area. The proposal, therefore, should have provision for
expansion of existing communities to accommodate emerging future communities in linewith the technology and innovation in the area of Internet. Further, Government
Advisory Committee (GAC) is a legitimate stakeholder group with a specific concern
and should, therefore, be part of the group. Adequate weight needs to be given to therecommendations of the GAC. Voting rights for the GAC in the Customer Standing
Committee may also be considered.
6.

Annexure 'S' attached to the draft proposal provides the following:
1

"PTI shall also taken into account the relevant national frameworks and applicablelaws of the jurisdiction that the TLD registry serves (page 138 of 199)."
More clarifications are needed to the above mentioned statement made in theAnnexure 'S'.
Further, in the provision relating to199) of Annexure 'S', the following is stated:

performanceexclusion(page143of"PTI not authorized to make modifications, additions, or deletions to the root zone
file or associated information. (The ICANN-PTI Contract will not alter the root zone file
responsibilities as set forth in Amendment 11 of the Cooperative Agreement NCR9218742 between the U.S. Department of Commerce and VeriSign Inc. or any
successor entity.""The performance of the functions under the ICANN-PTI Contract, including thedevelopment of recommendations in connection with Section C.2.9.2 of the ICANNNTIA Contract, shall not be, in any manner, predicated or conditioned on the existenceor entry into any contract, agreement or negotiation between PTI and any party
requesting such changes or any other third-party. Compliance with this Section must be
consistent with C.2.8.2d of the ICANN-NTIA Contract."
It would be necessary to have clarification on the said provisions mentioned in
Annexure 'S'.
7. The ICG proposal provides that the ICANN Board will have both administrative as wellas policy functions. The proposal states that the CWG Stewardship recommends that
implementation of all changes to the Root Zone environment such as DNSSEC as wellas many classes of changes to IANA function operator processes would require
formal approval of the ICANN Board. The proposal states that the framework in thisregard would be in place. It is suggested that the framework must provide for thefunctions of the Standing Committee as well as the processes followed by the Standing
Committee. Since changing of the Root Zone functions has important public policy
implications,
theStanding
Committee
must
ideallyinclude
arepresentative from GAC. Further, special emphasis should be put on developing anopen, transparent and accountable framework. It is necessary that additional checks
and balances and verification processes are put in place for authorization of changes
to the Root Zone content and the associated WHOIS database. Such a framework
should be finalized prior to the IANA Stewardship transition to the new proposal. Inaddition, there should be a broader policy on the root servers. The protocol may need
to be revised, if necessary, for adding more root servers in different parts of the world. Also,
there should be an equitable distribution of root servers across countries.
8. The Root Zone Maintainer should be appointed through an open, fair,transparent and accountable tender process. The Root Zone maintainer has a crucialrole to perform with respect to Domain Name Server. Therefore, the Root Zone Maintainertransition should be a necessary condition to ensure that the ICG proposal iscomplete.

29. The participation at ICANN policy development processes has not beensatisfactory from certain regions, specifically from developing and emerging economies
and least developed countries. It is important that the structure of governance that emerges
post-transition is perceived as democratic and representative. In this context, it is imperativethat the transition proposals consider criteria to enhance participation from all regions in theregular policy development and decision making processes. The commitment to a multistakeholder approach should be truly inclusive. There is an urgent need for ICANN to do further
outreach, and make itself more visible to the global community once the transition takes place.
This is also a key component in developing Community Empowerment mechanisms.
10. There are concerns with respect to whether the implementation of the proposal
will continue to adhere to the criteria based on which IANA transition has been
proposed. One of the criteria for present transition is that the proposal should havenecessary safeguards to ensure that it is immune to control by any government or aninter-governmental organization. The issue of legal jurisdiction in such circumstances
assumes greater importance especially as the ICANN and the newly proposed PTI arebased in one particular country. It may be pointed out that being subject to the laws of aspecific jurisdiction could lead ICANN and PTI open to some level of indirect government
control.
Thereisalsoaneedforsafeguards,checksandbalances
to ensure that the contract entered by ICANN with ccTLDs and gTLDs are subject to thejurisdiction of the respective countries. It will be necessary to further debate issues andevolve sound criteria and framework on jurisdiction issues.
11.
Further, it must be ensured that the new accountability mechanisms as described in theICG document are fully completed before the definite final transition. NTIA has
renewed its contract with ICANN through September, 2016. It may not be possible to fully
implement all mechanism by that time. There are unclear and unresolved issues regarding
trademarks as provided in the proposal.
12.
The success of the IANA transition will, to a large extent, depend upon the ways
and means by which the accountability measures are implemented with full transparency andresponsibility. Finally, the proposal focuses on transition of many current processes andmethods. The proposal must also provide for flexibility for looking at machine tomachine communication and Internet of Things and implications on Internet assignednumbers.

3