Report: eco Dialog on the Future III – New Alignment of Internet Administration

International community driving transition

Berlin, 10.04.2015 – Who will, in what form, take over the supervision of the IANA functions from October 2015? The closer this date comes, the more intensive the discussion is becoming – after the US government announced at the beginning of last year their intention to withdraw from the supervision of ICANN and therefore also over the IANA functions. ICANN and eco invited participants to the third installment of the “Dialog on the Future”, in order to provide information on the current status. With more than 30 participants, the process of the IANA Stewardship Transition was discussed and analyzed intensively.

Technical community sees no brisance

After the greeting by the eco Directors Prof. Michael Rotert and Oliver Süme, ICANN Vice-President Europe Jean Jacques Sahel and eco Director of Names and Numbers Thomas Rickert – also Member of the GNSO Council and Co-Chair of the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability – presented the current status of the process. They were supported in this by representatives from the technical community Axel Pawlik (Managing Director, RIPE NCC) and Hans-Peter Dittler (Director, ISOC Germany). As in the Dialog on the Future II in December 2014, they maintained that from a technical perspective, the IANA Stewardship Transition holds no political brisance. “Best would be if we leave everything they way it is,” said Pawlik. Ultimately, he said, the technical community is satisfied with the services from IANA. Dittler also saw the course of the Stewardship Transition so far as positive, as long as the security and stability of ICANN would remain guaranteed. The IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) and the ICG (IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group) are thus currently engaged in an intensive exchange.

Proposals on the IANA Transition

In conjunction with this, Thomas Rickert pointed out that the processes for the IANA Stewardship transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability are not under the control of ICANN. Rather, ICANN is simply making the framework and the resources available to the multi-stakeholder community, in the context of which the paths toward transition can be discussed and agreed upon. This, he said, includes the obtaining of independent legal counsel. “In contrast, there is much more potential for conflict in the allocation of Web addresses,” said Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, as representative of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG). This group coordinates and aggregates the proposals on the IANA Stewardship Transition from the communities for IP addresses, protocols and names. Central to this is the questions of whether the future control over IANA, which should replace the US Government, should reside within or outside of ICANN. Currently, a range of proposals are being discussed and examined by the ICG for their legal applicability. An applicable proposal should be presented by the end of the ICANN Meeting in Buenos Aires in June.

The work of the CCWG

With regards to this, Thomas Rickert explained the division of the Stewardship transition into what is being called “Workstream 1” and “Workstream 2”. The first process involves all necessary steps that need to be taken by October 2015. The second process, in turn, is dedicated to the optimization of ICANN, which goes beyond this date. In the following discussion, Thomas Schneider (Chair of the Government Advisory Committee at ICANN), Hubert Schöttner (Member of the Government Advisory Committee) and Wolfgang Kleinwächter (Member of the ICANN Board) emphasized that a very internationally positioned community is working on the question of how supervision previously resident in the USA could be communally regulated in the future, where all levels – from the respective governments to the civil societies – can be taken into account. In order to provide the appropriate framework, the CCWG proposes reforms in the areas “Empowered Community”, “ICANN Board”, “Principles” and “Independent Appeal Mechanisms”. Here, Rickert introduced a range of aspects that need to be taken into consideration.

Federal Ministry for the Economy campaigning for the German position

After the first break, Hubert Schöttner, from the German Federal Ministry for the Economy took the floor. As the German representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee at ICANN, he had supported the work on a joint German set of Recommendations for Action on the IANA Stewardship Transition with eco and other institutions – both from the industry and from the civil society. Schöttner pointed out that “the open self-administration model of ICANN must without fail be protected and continued, in order to further advance the positive development of the Internet.” He saw a need to rectify the situation of institutions that are affected by decisions from ICANN but are not represented at ICANN, so that these can be incorporated in processes. As an example, he mentioned decisions by ICANN which contravene national laws in the area of data protection.

ICANN provides framework for transition

Tarek Kamel, as Senior Advisor to the ICANN President, expressed his gratitude that ICANN was being given the possibility, through events like the Dialog on the Future, to support the transition process also for the German community. He also mentioned the close cooperation with ISOC, RIPE, IETF and other organizations. Here, he gave those present a historical outline of how ICANN was founded. “The multi-stakeholder approach is for us without alternative,” said Kamel on the future of the institution. In addition, he saw it as remarkable that all groups and representatives negotiate with one another at eye-level.

Following this, Wolfgang Kleinwächter described the current situation for the ICANN Board. He emphasized that it was not the Board that sets the pace for ICANN, but rather the community. As a result, he warned against demands that the “future of the Internet should be discussed in the UN General Assembly. Ultimately, the General Assembly is not a multi-stakeholder committee.” Neither the technical community nor the civil society would be represented there. Despite this, Kleinwächter said, the ICANN Board was aware that it needed to work hard to earn the trust of the community – “open dialog” would be the only solution.

“The new gTLD program has set in motion a process,” Kamel continued. With the start of the program, questions of regional importance were discussed at the international level, something which had not previously occurred, according the Advisor to the ICANN President. This, he said, has contributed to an active and interactive community. After this, Thomas Schneider, Spokesman for the Governmental Advisory Committee at ICANN, commented that it should not be forgotten in the discussion that the Internet from a historical perspective has American roots. Nevertheless: “The mindset of ICANN is already much more strongly internationalized,” said Schneider, “even if there is still a need for improvement.” This had been evident, he said, in several discussions, such as for “.wine” versus “.vin”. “It is important,” continued Schneider, “ that we keep at it with this process.”

Finally, Thomas Rickert addressed the effect the current work on the IANA Transition has on those involved. The intensity of the work such that it functions as a process of elimination – who is prepared to undertake the work, and who has the capacity to do it. ICANN is called upon at this point to ensure that as many as possible of the stakeholders and communities involved in the process are sustainably reached and integrated. This led to a lively discussion and question round as the conclusion of the event.