IAB statement on 2nd interim report

submitted for information to the PSO PC as promised...

    Geoff

---

IAB Response to ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee Second Interim Report
September, 2002

The IAB has reviewed the proposals contained in the Second Interim
Implementation Report of the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee. [1]

The review has been undertaken with specific reference to the May 2002 IAB
Response to ICANN Evolution and Reform. [2]

1. Protocol Support Organization

  The IAB is in agreement with the proposal not to continue with the
  Protocol Support Organization.

2. The Provision of Technical Advice to ICANN

  The IAB, in its original response noted that: "the alternative of using a
  number of technically focussed organizations and individuals on an ad hoc
  basis to provide comment upon request should be considered by ICANN." [2]

  The IAB notes that the second interim report proposes a standing
  committee composed of "10 members selected by the ICANN Board based on
  nominations from ETSI, ITU-T, W3C, IETF and IAB." [1]

  As part of the IAB's chartered function [3] is to appoint IETF liaisons
  where necessary, the IAB believes "IETF and "IAB" should be changed to
  "IETF", and we would agree to provide 2 nominations.

  The IAB notes that the report does not propose that the TAC attempt to
  achieve unified technical positions on various issues referred to the
  TAC. The IAB concurs that any TAC should not attempt to do so.

  Given the role of the proposed TAC, and noting that it is not a
  requirement that the TAC come to consensus on technical advice that may
  be passed to the ICANN Board on any referred matter, the IAB does not
  feel that it is appropriate that this committee operate with a formal
  chair, nor that the TAC should appoint a liaison member to the ICANN
  Board of Trustees. The IAB proposes consideration of the appointment of
  an ICANN Board member to act as a liaison to the TAC, in order to provide
  an appropriate conduit of information between the Board and the TAC, as
  an alternative to the appointment of a non- voting liaison from the TAC
  to the ICANN Board.

  The IAB is unconvinced of the merits of the role of the Nominations
  Committee with respect to the seating of 3 members of the TAC. If the
  role of the TAC is to act as points of referral of technical matters
  between the ICANN Board and the respective organizations who participate
  in the TAC, the role of these 3 nominated members is entirely unclear.
  This appears to contribute to the role of the TAC as a standing
  committee, and the IAB would like to reiterate its stated concern with
  the creation of standing committees.

  The IAB reiterates its conviction, stated in [2], that a preferred
  alternative to the TAC proposal is for the ICANN Board to maintain direct
  relationships with relevant organizations (e.g., through liaisons such as
  the one proposed with the IETF) to seek technical advice from the
  appropriate sources on an as-needed basis.

3. ICANN Board Positions

  The IAB noted in its previous response that it had concerns regarding the
  seating of ICANN Board members from the IAB. The IAB notes that the
  interim report proposes that the IAB provides a non-voting liaison to the
  ICANN Board. The IAB notes that this liaison role addresses the concerns
  raised by the IAB with respect to this role.

4. IETF Protocol Parameters

  In its previous response the IAB disputed the assertion in the ICANN
  mission statement that the role of coordination of the allocation and
  assignment of protocol port and parameter numbers, and policy-development
  reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions, forms
  an integral part of ICANN's mission.

  The IAB notes that the interim report makes no mention of the stated IAB
  concerns regarding this component of the ICANN mission statement. The IAB
  remains deeply concerned that the role of the management of protocol
  parameter assignments for IETF Internet-Standard protocols is not being
  adequately distinguished from the deeper issues concerning the role of
  ICANN with respect to the operation of the domain name system and unicast
  IP address assignment.

  As indicated in the previous response, this situation is not acceptable
  to the IAB.

  

Leslie Daigle.
Chair, Internet Architecture Board

  

  [1] Second Interim Implementation Report of the ICANN Evolution and
      Reform Committee.
      http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/second-implementation-
      report-02sep02.htm

  [2] IAB Response to ICANN Evolution and Reform
      http://www.iab.org/DOCUMENTS/icann-response.html

  [3] Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), BCP39, RFC 2850,
      May 2000.

Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 17:44:06 UTC