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

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Apr 2 12:07:51 UTC 2014


On Wednesday 02 April 2014 12:34 PM, Naresh Ajwani wrote:
>
> I agree but both shud come under same/common framework of laws.
>
> Regards & best wishes
>
> Naresh Ajwani
>
> On 2 Apr 2014 09:53, "Joseph Alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com 
> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>     We all have a vested interest in road safety, but not everyone
>     should repair cars or pave roads. 
>

I think this is an interesting analogy with regard to ICANN oversight 
issue. Not everyone should repair cars or pave roads, but everyone will 
be involved in broad/ higher oversight of these functions - there are 
regulations both about cars and roads. And such regulation - at at arms 
length from implicated technical functions, derive their authority from 
legitimate political bodies, which in term derive it from the public.


>      There are topics related to the rules and overall administration
>     of the system which need to be inclusive but there are operational
>     elements which depend on skills and expertise. 
>

Yes, exactly.

>     Where and how do we draw those boundaries?
>


As to how boundaries between technical and oversight function are drawn, 
it is obvious that these have to be drawn in a political legitimate 
manner, whereby clear rules are instituted for the oversight role. This 
drawing of boundaries is a higher political function, and not a 
technical one. Clear rules and possibility of judicial review of 
decisions of the oversight body should ensure that there is no 
illegitimate interference in technical and operational functions of the 
technical bodies (this much is clearly said in Tunis agenda).

parminder



>
>     Sent from my iPad
>
>     > On Apr 1, 2014, at 8:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter
>     <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>>
>     wrote:
>     >
>     >> On 02/04/2014 13:16, David Conrad wrote:
>     >> Brian,
>     >>
>     >>> On Apr 2, 2014, at 4:19 AM, Brian E Carpenter
>     <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>>
>     wrote:
>     >>> Those with a vested interest are the least trustworthy overseers.
>     >>
>     >> Without commenting on the DNSA or other structural separation
>     proposals:
>     >>
>     >> The IETF oversees the operation of the protocol parameter function.
>     >> The RIRs oversee the operation of the numbers allocation function.
>     >>
>     >> Both of these entities would appear to have vested interest.
>     >
>     > Well, I guess everybody has a vested interest when you come down
>     > to it. Isn't that the reason for having all stakeholders involved,
>     > so that no vested interest can predominate? However, in this
>     > game, it seems to be the case that DNS registrars have a very
>     > specific and direct financial interest.
>     >
>     >   Brian
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > discuss mailing list
>     > discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>     > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     discuss mailing list
>     discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>     http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140402/53c9290f/attachment.html>


More information about the discuss mailing list