Name: Javier Pallero
Organization: AccessSubmission ID: 116

Dear ICG members,
Access wishes to provide comments on the IANA transition joint proposal as published in
https://www.ianacg.org/calls-­‐for-­‐input/combined-­‐proposal-­‐public-­‐comment-­‐
period/#instructionssubmitcomment
You can find our comments attached.
Best regards,-­‐-­‐-­‐Javier Pallero
Policy Analyst / Analista de Politicas
Access | accessnow.org
PGP REDACTED
Fingerprint REDACTED
Suscríbase a nuestro newsletter sobre derechos digitales, el AccessExpress: accessnow.org/express

Comments to the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal
September 8, 2015Introduction
Access (www.accessnow.org) is an international organization that defends and extends thedigital rights of users at risk around the world. By combining innovative policy, user
engagement, and direct technical support, we fight for open and secure communications forall.
Internet governance processes impact the rights of internet and technology end users
globally. Access engages in several fora that affect the development of these processes,
such as the World Summit for Information Society and the Internet Governance Forum.
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) manages key resources for the everyday
operation of the internet, and the IANA transition process will certainly affect the globalcommunity. Security, stability, interoperability and transparency in the management ofinternet critical resources is paramount for building an open internet that enables theexercise of human rights online and provides opportunities for human development.
In order to achieve that, the post IANA governance of the Domain Name System (DNS),Internet Protocol (IP) numbering resources, and Protocol Parameters, should focus on thehuman rights impact that any planned policies might generate. We strongly believe that it is aresponsibility of all internet governance institutions and spaces to promote initiatives andcommitments to advance human rights online. This implies not only the upfront human rights
impact evaluation of policy proposals in substance - but also processes such as periodic
performance reviews and feedback mechanisms ensuring the provision of remedies to users
adversely impacted by violations of human rights standards in internet technicaladministration. Any new remedial processes should be designed in adherence with bestpractice and principles, including the UN Guiding Principles on Business & Human Rights,
Article 31, which counsels that effective non-judicial grievance mechanisms must belegitimate, accessible, transparent, predictable, equitable, rights-compatible, and based oncontinuous learning and engagement with affected stakeholders.

Users and their rights must remain at the center of governance policies. That’s why it isimportant that post IANA transition institutions - including the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) - deepen their commitment to the democratic,participatory and inclusive model of internet governance, while actively supporting the voiceof internet end users in internet governance spaces.
Questions Concerning the Proposal as a Whole
1. 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 isimplemented. Is the combined proposal specified in sufficient detail such that it can beevaluated against the NTIA criteria?
Yes, the combined proposal is complete and is detailed enough to be evaluated against
the NTIA criteria. Nevertheless, the final proposal should include detailed information
regarding the relationship that would exist between the Post Transition IANA (PTI)
organization functions as described in the Domain Name Community Proposal and theNumbering and Protocol Parameters communities. The final proposal should describe
aclear scenario with detailed competences and interaction schemes for each of theinvolved constituencies.
2. Compatibility and interoperability: Do the operational community proposals work together
in a single proposal? Do they suggest any incompatible arrangements where compatibility
appears to be required? Is the handling of any conflicting overlaps between the functions
resolved in a workable manner?
The operational community proposals can work together in a single combined
proposal, although some clarification might be needed regarding contractual
arrangements. The numbers and protocol parameters communities have stated in their
proposals that they would continue to work with ICANN as the IANA Functions
Operator (IFO) whereas the domain names community proposed delegatingsome of the IANA
functions to the PTI, without any clear reference as to who will act as
the IFO.
The final proposal must provide details regarding with whom the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF) and Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) will contract to perform theIANA functions under their management.
3. Accountability: Do the operational community proposals together include appropriate andproperly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA functions?
Are there any gaps in overall accountability under the single proposal?

The operational community proposals together include basic accountability mechanisms thatseem sufficient under NTIA criteria. We would emphasise that there are specific details thatany final proposal should include in order to provide complete accountability mechanisms. It
is of paramount importance that the accountability mechanisms and review organisms
planned for the PTI should include further details on their constitution, funding, performanceand transparency.
Additionally, the work of the IANA Transition Coordination Group (ICG) should take into
account the input received by the parallel process on ICANN’s accountability
currently
led by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN
Accountability(CCWG).
4. Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of workability that were included inthe operational community proposals conflict with each other or raise possible concerns
when considered in combination?
The three proposals are individually and collectively workable, despite the differences in theirscope, origin and details of implementation. One aspect that the final proposal should
address is that of IANA’s trademark and domain name ownership. The NTIA, who is theowner of IANA related Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) should transfer their ownership to thenew IFO in order to facilitate the everyday operation of the IANA functions.
Another issue to be settled relies on the IPRs associated with protocol registries, which arealso in the hands of the NTIA. We subscribe to the proposal by the numbers community oftransferring the protocols registries into the public domain to provide transparency andenable the continuation of the current operational scheme.
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, we believe that the current proposal supports and enhances the multistakeholder
model. The proposal was built upon consultation with the constituencies involved intheeveryday operation of the IANA functions, which in turn reached their communities inanopen and transparent way. Each one of the steps in the process was open to public
scrutiny in mailing lists and received the input of all stakeholder and the generalpublic.
Finally, the combined proposal included the consultation and transparency provisions
from each one of the individual proposals successfully.

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 youbelieve are necessary.
The combined proposal maintains the security, stability and resilience of the DNS.
Security and stability issues are better addressed by governance mechanisms that guarantee
transparency and openness. Consequently, the final proposal should stress the importanceof participation and debate in all policy discussions and include operational
details
regarding dispute resolution and conciliation of interests before the PTI.
7. Do you believe the proposal meets the needs and expectations of the global customers
and partners of the IANA services? If yes, please explain why. If not, please explain why andwhat proposal modifications you believe are necessary. Please indicate if you are a customer
or partner of the IANA services.
N/A
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 are necessary.
We believe that the combined proposal maintains the openness of the internet, because it
includes participation and transparency mechanisms from each of the individual proposals.
Nevertheless, we reiterate that the final proposal should include further details about disputeresolution mechanisms before the PTI and other functions operators, and should adhere tobest practice and principles for effective non-judicial grievance mechanisms, which arelegitimate, accessible, transparent, predictable, equitable, rights-compatible, and based oncontinuous learning and engagement with affected stakeholders, as delineated in the UN
Guiding Principles on Business & Human Rights.
9. Do you have any concerns that the proposal is replacing NTIA's role with a government-led
or intergovernmental organization solution? If yes, please explain why and what proposal
modifications you believe are necessary. If not, please explain why.
No. The current proposal does not replace the NTIA’s role on the management of criticalinternet resources with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution. Eachone of the individual proposals as well as the combined proposal stress the importance ofthe multistakeholder model for governance. Additionally, the combined proposal brings
together a solution where different global internet actors play complementary roles in themanagement of the IANA functions and governments keep their position as advisors in an
equal stance to other advisory committees.

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.
N/A
Questions Concerning ICG Report and Executive Summary
11. 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, the ICG report and executive summary reflect all necessary aspects of the overall
proposal.
General Questions
12. Do you have any general comments for the ICG about the proposal?
We believe that the combined proposal successfully merges the key aspects of theproposals elaborated by the each of the operational communities and complies with theNTIA criteria. Nevertheless, the final combined proposal should take into account that some
aspects still require clarification, as we mentioned in our answers to the consultationquestions numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8.
The IANA transition process presents the global community with a unique opportunity toenhance the multistakeholder model and to improve transparency in the management ofcritical internet resources, allowing the Internet to continue to be operated in the public trustand facilitate the advancement of the digital rights of users globally. The ICG should makesure to include all the relevant information and community feedback into the final proposal to
make sure all views and concerns are duly considered.

Identifying Information
Javier Pallero
Policy Analyst

REDACTEDRaman Jit Singh Chima
Policy Director

REDACTEDCountry/Economy:​
GlobalOrganization:​​Access