[discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA

Fri Mar 7 09:18:58 UTC 2014

Am 05.03.14 18:56, schrieb Milton L Mueller:
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
> [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>
>> Regarding 4, your model seems so expansive and expensive that I
>> find it hard to imagine that Verisign's bill would exceed its cost
>> in the long run.
>
> No, this is a charge with no factual basis.

None of us has a factual basis. We are speculating about future 
developments. I therefore wrote "seem".

The DNSA creates an
> operational process and pays someone to do it. While it may be
> expensive to create the DNSA, the actual root zone operations would
> be no more expensive than now, possibly less in the long term because
> less arbitrarily divided and no NTIA "man in the middle" - and the
> registries have an incentive to do it as efficiently as possible if
> they are paying for it.
>
>> Regarding 1 and 2, if the IANA function is indeed stripped off all
>> policy discretion, shouldn't it be possible to devise a contract
>> that makes it more or less irrelevant if the contracting partner is
>> a huge DNSA apparatus or just one organization?
>
> An interesting suggestion. (Note that it pushes in the exact opposite
> direction of most of the other comments we are getting, about the
> alleged power of this DNSA and the need for even more 'stakeholders'.
> I like that)
>
> It depends on who is contracting with whom. When you make this
> suggestion, are you suggesting that ICANN is the principal and DNSA
> the agent? Can't answer your question until you answer that one.

Yes, I guess I had ICANN as the other contractor in mind. The focus of 
my question was about the simple, well defined task of the DNSA, 
however. Could this task be covered by a contract that would make the 
contracting partner irrelevant?
>
> The virtue of the DNSA is that it would have buy-in from all the
> world's registries. The object here is globalization, remember?

I get that but I wonder whether you are building a sledgehammer to crack 
something that would just be a nut if properly designed.

  You
> are correct, however, that there would be a price in complexity of
> organization. The other virtue is that 'collective bargaining with
> ICANN' element, which I see you ignored in your response.
>
>> One could combine the contract-based model with a supervisory board
>> that ensures compliance and takes care of complaints.
>
> Aha. And how is this "supervisory board" different from the
> registry-based governance structure we propose?

It would be small and not create a body that integreates all registries.

  I suspect that it is
> not different at all, just not as well thought out

I am not suggesting a less thought out model, I am asking quesions about 
yours to better understand the requirements of the institutional 
architecture we are trying to build.

jeanette

and the
> supervisors would not have as good an incentive structure
>
> Keep in mind that root zone entries with DNSSEC are auditable and
> harder to manipulate.
>