Comments on ICANN draft statement on its SSR role and remit
These comments are submitted by me as an individual, and not on behalf of any company, organization, or group. ICANN seeks comments on its draft statement of role and remit with respect to the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet's unique identifier systems, which responds to the SSR review team's Recommendations 1 and 3. These recommendations call for (1) "a single, clear, and consistent statement of [ICANN'S] SSR remit" and (3) documentation of the SSR relationships within the ICANN community. These are important exercises, and I am pleased to note that the current draft, which focuses on (1), is both clear and concise. It is written at just the right level of detail, beyond which the clarity solicited by the SSR RT would not be possible. A. With respect to the current draft statement: 1. It is important, in this context, to use the terms "Internet unique identifiers" and "Internet unique identifier systems" carefully and precisely. In almost every case, ICANN's role involves the latter, not the former. The canonical phrase is the one that appears in Article I, Section 1 (Mission) of the Bylaws: "to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems." For example, the first paragraph of the draft statement should refer to "the Internet's unique identifier systems" rather than to "the Internet's unique identifiers." The first bullet point under "ICANN's technical mission includes," however, should be "coordinating the allocation of the Internet's unique identifiers," not "...identifier systems." 2. Although it is tempting to assume that the answer to a question that begins with "What does it mean to coordinate..." should be as specific as possible, I think that the level of detail in the current draft (e.g., "To coordinate means to actively engage...") is precisely right. ICANN's coordination role is not something that can be narrowly prescribed. The draft notes that "This [coordination role] is a shared responsibility among the community of multi-stakeholder participants in the Internet ecosystem and not one borne alone by ICANN as a singular entity." This is a core value, and in the words of the Bylaws "the specific way in which [it applies] ... to each new situation will necessarily depend on many factors that cannot be fully anticipated or enumerated." B. With respect to the call for "community feedback on ICANN's SSR relationships with others in the Internet ecosystem": 1. ICANN operates a root server instance (the L-root), and as such participates in the community of individuals and organizations that collectively operate the root server system. This is not an SSR role as such, except to the extent that every root server operator is concerned about the security, stability, and resiliency of its own operation. 2. As the registry for the DNS root, ICANN might be expected to have the same interest in the operation of the root server system that any registry has in the operation of the zone for which it is responsible. The root, however, is not like any other DNS zone. Unlike the zones centrally managed by other registries, it has evolved as a highly decentralized dynamic system that is largely independent of its registry. The geographic and organizational decentralization of the root system reflect a deliberate design decision in favor of diversity and minimal fate-sharing coordination, which confers substantial security, stability, and resiliency benefits on the global Internet. ICANN's coordination role with respect to root server operations should therefore be carefully constrained so as not to forfeit those benefits. Thank you for considering these comments - - Lyman Chapin Attachment:
smime.p7s |