[discuss] USG- IANA relationship (was: Interesting article)

[Alejandro Pisanty]

John,

this is indeed a scenario that has been worked out for several cycles over
the years.

One of the most exciting parts is that a stand-alone NRO without the full
ICANN architecture would be subject to intense anti-trust inspection in the
US or Europe and most likely found at fault. This scenario underlines the
importance of a fully architected ICANN for all its players and, most
importantly, for its ability to be a competent steward caring for these
participants' interests and for the principles held dear by a global
population of non- or indirect participants.

Understanding of this angle is one of the key boundary conditions for
solving George Sadowsky's formulation of the successive layers of the
problem.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty


On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Jan 21, 2014, at 5:46 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>
> wrote:
> > Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> [2014-01-17 02:55:32 +0000]:
> >> Even less practical. ICANN has contracts with a host of multinational
> businesses implicating billions of dollars; it can't just dissolve itself
> and reincorporate somewhere else.
> >
> > That's a very interesting point.  Wouldn't this problem also have been
> created had the NTIA decided that they were going to award the IANA
> contract to a body other than ICANN?  How would it have been resolved then?
>
> _In theory_, ICANN's role of being the Internet identifier coordination
> body,
> and more specifically - the DNS Policy Development organization, is
> distinct
> from ICANN's registry administration role (performed via the IANA function
> contract with NTIA and MOU with the IAB/IETF [RFC 2860])   I'll be the
> first
> to admit that this distinction can be very difficult to discern at times
> due
> to the adjacency of the various roles that has occurred over the years.
>
> Back during the resolictation of the IANA function contract, I was asked
> what
> would happen if the contract were awarded to another party.  Presuming (for
> sake of argument) that the IETF had been in concurrence, it would have
> simply
> meant that some other organization was maintaining the records of what is
> in
> each of the various IP, protocol, and DNS registries.  The policy that the
> new
> contract recipient would use would likely have remained the NRO/ASO for IP
> global address policy, the IETF for protocol parameter registries, and
> ICANN
> for DNS root zone.  ICANN's relations with the various DNS registrars and
> registries may not have changed in the least, as the IANA functions are
> predominantly administrative and technical in nature based on policies
> developed by others.
>
> In any case, it would have been a _very_ exciting time.
>
> FYI,
> /John
>
> Disclaimer: My views alone.  Do not try this at home; some steps have been
>             omitted for purpose of explanation.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140122/4635b0f9/attachment.html>