[discuss] Interesting article

Thu Jan 16 19:22:04 UTC 2014

Peter,

On 17/01/2014 07:29, Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:
> On 16/01/2014, at 10:52 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>> On 15/01/2014 04:05, Dominique Lacroix wrote:
>>> Sorry Jorge, but we must be clear for all the people who try to understand:
>>>
>>> Icann IS IN CHARGE of Iana, and for several years!
>>> See: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order
>> That is a partial story. Actually the NTIA contract is
>> redundant. The IETF MoU is the instrument by which the
>> technical community delegated the IANA function to ICANN.
> 
> Hello Brian
> While I think it accurate and helpful to include the IETF MoU as part of the authority ICANN has for doing this portion of IANA work, I think its wrong to elevate its importance to the degree you do, and similarly to consequentially denigrate the importance of the IANA name and number functions ICANN performs.

That wasn't my intention; quite the opposite, in fact.
I don't see one single respect in which IANA would change
anything of what it does each day if the NTIA contract
vanished.

> Here are the terms of work of that MoU (http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/ietf/ietf-icann-mou-01mar00-en.htm):

Yes, I drafted that text in 1998.

...

> While the parameter protocols covered by this are no doubt important to the IETF and others, they rarely come to the attention of players outside the technical community, and are not the cause of any of the angst that the control the US has over approving ccTLD changes in the root, or the policy issues over new gTLDs have caused other national governments.

As John Curran pointed out, the "policy" areas that we intentionally
exempted from the MoU, and root server operations, had a multi-stakeholder
model from the start. They never needed, and still don't need, any
government authority; they just work.

>> From a multi-stakeholder or technical viewpoint, nothing
>> would change if the NTIA contract was cancelled today.
>>
> 
> 
> I don't understand your point here at all.
> If the NTIA contract with ICANN to perform the IANA functions were to be cancelled, presumably another entity would have to be appointed. 

Why? ICANN would simply continue to do them. There would be no
vacuum, no financial issue. ICANN would be running independently.
That's what should have happened in 1998, but Magaziner and
the DoC simply couldn't see it.

    Brian

> If that were to be the USG itself, that would have enormous political repercussions, and would undo 15 years of work by the USG in supporting the establishment and growth of an independent ICANN.

> Can you expand on your thinking a little?
> 
> regards
> 
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
>>> Without Iana contract, Icann would not be a political issue.
>> Without the _NTIA_ contract, I agree.
>>
>> On 16/01/2014 04:05, Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:
>> ...
>>> The PSC final recommendation was that ICANN look at the international not for profit status available under Swiss law.
>> Which was of course one of the more attractive options
>> rejected in 1998. If I could have three wishes, the first
>> two would be unconditional cancellation of the NTIA
>> contract and relocation of ICANN's seat to Geneva.
>>
>>    Brian
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss