[discuss] Interesting article
Carlos A. Afonso
ca at cafonso.ca
Tue Jan 14 14:53:06 UTC 2014
OK, Jorge, but is precisely the IANA function that is left to be
"internationalized", or "deamericanized". The rest of the Icann "job
description" (Icann's "meaning of life" is its contracts or operational
agreements with NTIA/USA) is already, if not internationalized, at least
quite decentralized (e.g, RIRs/NRO).
On 01/14/2014 12:42 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Roland Perry
> <roland at internetpolicyagency.com
> <mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com>> wrote:
> In message
> <CAMzo+1bYKXDJVt___zckNGnacn32j4qwEXXGsV8L3YMo2ts__Yd3XQ at mail.gmail.com
> <mailto:CAMzo%2B1bYKXDJVt_zckNGnacn32j4qwEXXGsV8L3YMo2tsYd3XQ at mail.gmail.com>>,
> at 07:37:24 on Tue, 14 Jan 2014, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com
> <mailto:jmamodio at gmail.com>> writes
> I'm not sure what do you mean about "requirements of US government".
> If you read the tender documents for the latest IANA contract,
> you'll find quite a bit of (very US-centric) stuff about the
> required geographic credentials of any qualifying organisation (and
> certain of its staff).
> I read all 65 pages of it, and this is true ONLY as the contractor for
> the IANA function, regardless if it is ICANN or not.
> Being ICANN the contractor has probably some positives, but on the other
> hand confuses a lot of people since the role as a contractor and policy
> development and other roles are (or are supposed to be) totally separate.
> So if you abstract the IANA contract, besides the requirements as
> US/California non-profit corporation there are no other requirements
> from the USG.
> So the US-centric issue is not ICANN, but IANA.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss