Name: Steven J. Metalitz
Organization: Coalition for Online Accountability
Submission ID: 100

The attached comments are submitted to the ICG on behalf of the Coalition for Online
Accountability regarding the IANA functions transition proposal. Please contact theundersigned with any questions.
On behalf of Coalition for Online Accountability (COA) | www.onlineaccountability.net
Steven J. Metalitz | Partner
T: REDACTED| F: REDACTED| REDACTED
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP
1818 N Street, N.W., 8th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20036 USATHE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-­‐MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THEPERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGEMAY BE AN ATTORNEY-­‐CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED ANDCONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT,YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING ORCOPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELYBY REPLY E-­‐MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALLATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.

COA Comments on IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal
September 8, 2015
Page 2

Second, at a more granular level of accountability for the IANA functions themselves, theProposal reflects a significant omission: there is no provision for oversight, appeal or review ofIANA function actions involving the country code Top Level Domains, including delegation andredelegation decisions. All such oversight or review provisions were excised from the Proposal
sent to the ICG. The CWG-Stewardship “principles and criteria” against which the Proposal is
supposed to be tested include appealability of all decisions of the IANA Functions Operator, andspell out a number of criteria for such appeals. See p. 77 of the Proposal, calling for all“decisions and actions of the IANA Functions Operator [to] …. be appealable by significantlyinterested parties” [para. 7(v)], and for the process for such appeals to “be independent, robust,affordable, timely, provide binding redress open to affected parties and be open to public
scrutiny” [para. 5(vi)]. But the Proposal itself excludes all ccTLD delegation or redelegation
decisions from review. (See p. 51, para. 1160)
COA accepts in principle that the appeals mechanism (and other oversight/review tools)
for IANA functions decisions related to ccTLDs could be one designed and proposed by theccTLDs themselves, so long as the mechanism fulfills the “principles and criteria.” But allowing
transition to occur with no binding plan or timetable to fill this gap is a major flaw in theProposal, and raises significant questions about full compliance with the NTIA criteria for
acceptance of the Proposal. Eliminating the oversight that currently exists for these decisions
cannot be said to fully preserve, much less to enhance, the multi-stakeholder model. Since suchdecisions certainly could impact on security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS, the omission ofoversight mechanisms for these decisions also raises serious questions of compliance with thiscriterion established by NTIA. We also acknowledge that “consensus may be difficult to achieve
on some of the important aspects of such a mechanism,” as noted on p. 115 of the Proposal; but
the same can be said about many other issues in the Proposal on which consensus apparently has
been achieved. These difficulties cannot be relied upon as an excuse for omitting a criticalelement the Proposal needs to address.
Finally, COA fully agrees with the statement in the Proposal that “transparency is aprerequisite of accountability” (p. 76), and so urges that this opportunity to improve thetransparency of the name-related IANA functions process be seized. Inclusion in the Proposal of
the transparency-related provisions of the “draft proposed term sheet” contained in Annex S (seepp. 140-41) could be an important step in that direction. But the status of this Annex as part ofthis Proposal is uncertain. Perhaps the enhanced transparency provisions of this Annex should
be incorporated directly into the Proposal.
COA appreciates the ICG’s consideration of these comments. If there are any questions,please contact the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven J. Metalitz, counsel to COA
c/o Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP
1818 N Street, NW, 8th Floor
Washington, DC 20036 U.S.A.
Email: REDACTED7084248.1