Name: Jordan Carter
Organization: InternetNZ
Submission ID: 123

Hi there
Please find attached comments from InternetNZ in response to the ICG's Proposal.
bestJordan-­‐-­‐Jordan Carter
Chief ExecutiveInternetNZ
A better world through a better Internet

Comments in response to the Proposal to Transition
the Stewardship of the IANA Functions from NTIA to
the Global Multistakeholder Community
8 September 2015

Introduction
InternetNZ is a multi-stakeholder membership-based Internet community
organisation in New Zealand, which serves the local Internet community in a rangeof ways including as the designated manager for the .nz country code Top Level
Domain.
Staff and members of InternetNZ have been leaders in global domain name policy
matters since before ICANN was formed. As an organisation we participate inglobal Internet Governance debates with a fused technical community/civilsociety mandate and interest.
The position set out here has been developed across the InternetNZ group and is
the organisation’s position, not an individual one.
We thank the ICG and the three operational communities for the work it has donein assembling and reviewing this proposal. It has been a marathon effort.
In summary, InternetNZ believes the Proposal:Broadly meets the NTIA’s criteria; andContains no fundamental incompatibilities

That is, on the two points above we generally support the ICG’s assessment.
As such, InternetNZ supports the proposal proceeding, but asks the ICG totake into account the matters and caveats set out below.

Page 1A)

Accountability conditionality remains vitalInternetNZ re-states its view that the separation model in the Names community
proposal is weak, and does not give the domain names community a similar levelof control over the future of the IANA functions related to names as will beenjoyed by the numbers and protocols communities. That said, the names
community consensus in favour of the proposal is clear, and we do not seek (norask the ICG) to remedy this weakness in the overall transition proposal.
ICANN's accountability to the global multistakeholder community is, however,much more important than it would have been with a stronger separation
approach for the Names community being embedded in the proposal.
We reiterate our very strong support for the conditionality set out in theNames part of the proposal - the conditionality for improving ICANN'saccountability.
While the CCWG-Accountability proposal currently meets the conditionality
required by the CWG-IANA, the carefully crafted settlement by the CCWGAccountability in its Second Draft Proposal will inevitably come under pressure as
it moves towards finalisation – including pressure from the ICANN Board.
In our judgement any significant deterioration in the accountability settlementfrom that set out in the CCWG's Second Draft Proposal would place theconditionality requirements of the Names Proposal at risk.
We would encourage the ICG to encourage the CWG-IANA to take a very public
and open approach to deciding whether the accountability conditionalities aremet. After all the work that has gone into the proposal so far, it is important thatthe generally open and inclusive approach is maintained through to the end ofthis process.

B)

ICANN must not become the Root Zone Maintainer

The ICG notes in its proposal that there will need to be an agreement createdbetween ICANN/PTI and Verisign in the latter's role as the Root Zone Maintainer.
InternetNZ has argued that one of the principles guiding the post-transitionenvironment should be a continued distribution of responsibilities among morethan one entity, to avoid creating a "single point of failure" in respect of theInternet's unique identifiers.
Separation of the RZM role from the IANA functions is an important operational
example of this principle at work.

Page 2

InternetNZ invites the ICG to consider whether the final transition proposal
should do more to specify and clarify that this separation, which has been inplace since before ICANN was formed, should continue for the foreseeable
future - perhaps being encapsulated as a Fundamental Bylaw in ICANN'srules.
This would provide community assurance that the role would not change withouta very high degree of community consensus, and would help protect the securityand stability of the Internet - one of the NTIA's criteria.

C)

SLEs must be in place prior to transition

The proposed Service Level Expectations framework developed by the CWGStewardship needs to be in place before the transition occurs.
We thank the CWG-IANA's design team, IANA staff and all those involved withthis work for agreeing on a radically improved set of expectations and measures
for service quality.

D)

References to ICP-1 should be removed

ICP-1 and other documents referenced in the Names Proposal that never met
the threshold to become policy must be clearly identified as such in the final
combined Proposal. Preferably, they should be removed from it. The only current
policies and guidelines applicable to ccTLDs are RFC1591 and the 2005 GAC
principles.

E)

ccTLD delegations and appeals

The Proposal (at para 1160) notes the CWG-IANA’s view that no appeals
mechanism should be developed “that would apply to ccTLD delegations andredelegations” in the Proposal. Annex O goes on to outline the survey of ccTLD
managers on the question conducted by the CWG-IANA.
There is an expectation that the ccNSO will run a policy development process todevelop a suitable appeals mechanism. In the interim, and if the transition
proposal proceeds, the one external safeguard in place (the NTIA’s role) will beremoved.
InternetNZ does not want to see ICANN able to make delegation and redelegation
decisions without ccTLDs having some right of appeal in the absence of a policy
framework that will take time to develop (and which we expect will be consistent
with the conclusions of the Framework of Interpretation review).

Page 3

InternetNZ therefore asks the ICG to consider whether either of the following
alternatives could address this problem suitably:a) allowing standing to ccTLDs to use the IRP in such situations, orb) imposing a moratorium on ccTLD delegations and redelegations until there
is a new appeals policy framework in place (with an exception where thelack of such an action places a serious threat to the security and stability ofthe DNS).

Declaring our involvementInternetNZ staff and contractors have participated in the process of assembling
this transition. Keith Davidson is a member of the ICG and a CWG-IANAparticipant. Jordan Carter has been a CWG-IANA participant and is a CCWGAccountability member. Jay Daley participated in the CWG’s design team dealing
with the SLEs.

With many thanks for your consideration,InternetNZ
8 September 2015

For further information please feel welcome to contact any of the following:

Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

REDACTED(note: Jordan is Lead Contact for this document)

Debbie Monahan

REDACTEDDomain Name Commissioner
Jay DaleyREDACTED

Chief Executive, NZRSPage 4