Name: Aziz Hilali

Organization: African Regional At-Large Organization (AFRALO)

Submission ID: 35

Dear All,
Please find attached the statement of the African Regional At-Large Organization (AFRALO)
on the ICG Proposal put for public comment.
This statement was transmitted to, discussed and approved by all AFRALO members.

Best Regards============================Aziz Hilali
Chair of AFRALO (African At-Large Organization/ICANN)
B.P. 68 04, Medinat Al Irfane,
Av. Allal Al Fassi Rabat - MarocTéléphone: REDACTED=============================

AFRALO Statement on ICG Proposal
4 September 2015----------------------------We Members of AFRALO community have been following closely the activities of the ICG
and most especially of the 3 operational communities namely the names, numbers andprotocol parameters. In view of this we like to present the following view about the first“combined” draft proposal of the ICG that is currently up for public comment by
responding to the specific questions asked by ICG:
Questions Concerning the Proposal as a Whole
1. Completeness and clarity: Is the combined proposal complete? Each of theoperational community proposals contains aspects to be completed in thefuture when the proposal is implemented. Is the combined proposal
specified in sufficient detail such that it can be evaluated against the NTIA
criteria?
 We believe the proposal is sufficient enough to be reviewed against
NTIA's criteria as it highlights the mechanisms that each operational
community intends to use as a replacement to NTIA oversight rôle.
Although the proposals did not indicate the actual SLA text for eachoperational community in details, it however contain the overall
principles/requirements that the SLA must entail which should give
NTIA sufficient information on what is proposed. As mentioned insection X016, 41 and 55, the aspect of the root zone maintainer is
not mentioned and we believe this is inline with the scope of ICG but
we hope/expect that NTIA would initate(have initiated) a process toaddress that. We hope that the SLA and the aspect of the root zone
maintainer will be fully clarified early enough in the implementation
phase.
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 handlingof any conflicting overlaps between the functions resolved in a workablemanner?
 The interoperability of proposal can be said to be assemblage of 3
considering that the process is designed to allow each community
determine her path hence there are differences is their choice ofsolution. However in terms of compatibility, we believe the proposal
as presented can co-exist. That said, we find the conclusion of theICG in paragraph 35 to be “quite predictive” considering that theCWG-Stewardship did not actually indicate to chose to be silent onthe IPR issue on IANA TM and domain. To avoid unnecessary second
guessing of the operational communities by the ICG, we encourage
ICG to follow-up with CWG-Stewardship to ensure they did intend tobe silent on the matter. Otherwise we accept and can live with thesuggested view of transferring the IANA TM and domain to IETF-Trust
as proposed by numbers community, even though our preference
was to leave the IANA TM and domain with ICANN.
 The CWG proposal suggests subcontracting of the IANA function
operation for numbers and protocol parameters to PTI, while wehave no major concern about this, we do expect that adequate
clarity on roles and responsibilities will be necessary consideringthat both communities intends to contract with ICANN directly. It will
be good for the SLA of the respective operational communities to“explicitly” permit such subcontracting possibility as well.
3. Accountability: Do the operational community proposals together include
appropriate and properly supported independent accountabilitymechanisms for running the IANA functions? Are there any gaps in overall
accountability under the single proposal?
 We believe the proposal from the numbers and protocol parameters
has sufficient «independent » accountability mechanism,
considering the historical accountability mechanism existing within
the 2 operational communities. We recognise that the names
proposal has a number of accountability dependencies on the ICANNCCWG on accountability and we expect that the report from thatgroup, if implemented will grant the names proposal adequate
independent accountability mechanism as well.
 We are concerned that the CWG-Stewardship on names suggested
composition of PTI has too much on names (considering that theGDD executive is also proposed to be on the board) and werecommend that the skill set requirement for the 2 external board
member to be sought be balanced across the operationalcommunities.
4. Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of workability thatwere included in the operational community proposals conflict with eachother or raise possible concerns when considered in combination?
 We are concerned with possible interference from the review teamsproposed hence, we suggest again that the scope of the IFR beclearly constrained such that it does not interfere with the activities
of PTI as it concerns other operational communities other thannames.
 Apart from the overall cost of maintenance of the various structure
proposed, we believe based on the results of the test evaluations
that the proposals are operationally workable.

Questions Concerning NTIA Criteria
5. Do you believe the proposal supports and enhances the multi-stakeholder
model? If yes, please explain why. If not, please explain why and what
proposal modifications you believe are necessary.
 Even though we disagree with ICG's view (as indicated in paragraph47) about both CSC and IFR consisting of non-ICANN participants weagree that the proposed solution improves the existing ICANN multistakeholder community, and will allow the so called “non-ICANNparticipants” to participate in the various processes. Hence webelieve it enhances the multi-stakeholder model.
6. Do you believe the proposal maintains the security, stability, and resiliencyof the DNS? If yes, please explain why. If not, please explain why and what
proposal modifications you believe are necessary.
 Its difficult to answer this with certainty because new structures areproposed in the proposal and one can't really tell the practical effectof these processes until we have experienced them. However,theoretically speaking, and depending on the outcome of the rootzone maintainer part of the process, we expect the proposal not toaffect security, stability and resiliency of the DNS.
 We assume that the DNS refereed here covers the 3 unique
identifiers otherwise its good to point that the question does notappropriately put other operational communities into consideration
as the proposal would affect other operational communities one way
or the other and NOT just the domain name system (DNS). Inview ofthis, we believe the views from the other operational communities
on this subject matter should be given more attention as well.
7. Do you believe the proposal meets the needs and expectations of theglobal customers and partners of the IANA services? If yes, please explain
why. If not, please explain why and what proposal modifications youbelieve are necessary. Please indicate if you are a customer or partner of
the IANA services.
 As Internet end user and actual “indirect” customer of IANA, wewould have preferred more balance in representation of the various
structure proposed. So while the proposal does not adequately meet
our expectation, we can live with what was proposed.
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.
 Yes we do, this is however to the extent that CCWG on accountabilityreport is implemented.
9. Do you have any concerns that the proposal is replacing NTIA’s role with agovernment-led or inter-governmental organization solution? If yes, pleaseexplain why and what proposal modifications you believe are necessary. If
not, please explain why.
 Certainly not, instead we see a proposal that allows/ensures
participation of various stakeholder even though we would have
prepared it be on a more equal footing than proposed.
10.
Do you believe that the implementation of the proposal willcontinue to uphold the NTIA criteria in the future? If yes, please explain
why. If not, please explain why and what proposal modifications youbelieve are necessary.
 Yes we do and again this is based on the overall accountability
mechanisms proposed by ICANN CCWG on accountability.
Questions Concerning ICG Report and Executive Summary
11.
Do you believe the ICG report and executive summary accuratelyreflect all necessary aspects of the overall proposal? If not, please explain
what modifications you believe are necessary.
 Not entirely based on our comments on question 2 above, otherwise webelieve every other aspect is accurate enoughFinally, we will like to reiterate our support on the request from the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to ICANN to “convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role”
with regard to the IANA Functions and related root zone management. We also appreciate
the extension of ICANN contract by a year, which we believe will further give adequate
time for implementation and testing of the overall combined proposal of the ICG. We
support the overall formation of the combined proposal of the ICG moving forward and wehope our concerns will be addressed accordingly. We look forward to an improved proposalthat further ensures participation of all relevant communities.