[discuss] [IANAtransition] A Summary of IANA Oversight Transition Tasks and Issues

[Brenden Kuerbis]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Shatan, Gregory S.
<GShatan at reedsmith.com>wrote:

<snip>


> Beyond that are the more inventive re-imaginings of IANA functions and
> oversight, such as removing IANA itself from ICANN and making it a
> stand-alone body (e.g., the "DNSA" proposal), which could make
> ICANN-without-IANA the overseer of this new IANA-without-ICANN, and other
> ideas that the NTIA would probably find "out of scope."
>
>
>

Two clarifications, just to set the record straight.

First, "overseer" can be interpreted too broadly. The IGP proposal does not
suggest a principal-agent relationship between the DNSA and ICANN. The DNSA
would be contractually bound to implement changes that followed ICANN's
defined policy making process.  If ICANN did not follow its defined
process, then the DNSA would have a grievance. In this manner, the DNSA
watches but does not direct ICANN.

Second, the NTIA has never said nor intimated that structural separation
would be "out of scope".  In fact, in an open discussion with the NCUC at
Singapore, Asst Sec Strickling plainly stated that the benefits and costs
of structural separation is "a debate...the community should have." [1]

Regards,

---------------------------------------
Brenden Kuerbis
Postdoctoral Researcher, iSchool, Syracuse University
Internet Governance Project ||
http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org>

[1]
http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/tue-ncuc/transcript-ncuc-25mar14-en.pdf


>  Beyond even that are the wholly unrelated, "let's change what we don't
> like about ICANN," "let's remake some or all of ICANN" and "let's blow up
> ICANN and start again" ideas.  All great fodder for IG-theorizing and even
> future activity, but not when we have such a significant project as that
> outlined above already on our hands.
>
>
>
> A similar exercise could be done for the transition of the Affirmation of
> Commitments from a US-ICANN document to a multiparty document (which might
> itself change significantly or be replaced).
>
>
>
> Greg Shatan
>
>
>
> * * *
>
> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and
> may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are
> on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and
> then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it
> for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you
> for your cooperation.
>
> * * *
>
> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you
> that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice
> contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not
> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
> avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and
> local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
> party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
>
> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140401/6bb571fa/attachment.html>