[discuss] shifts in IANA/accountability discussion: your thoughts?

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"]

John,
 
thanks for the specification. Yes, you are absolutely right that you have to have special arrangements for all of the IANA functions. This is one reason why I proposed a "decentralized" mechanism which can have also different layers (protocol layer, number layer etc.)
 
Very often - in the more political debate - the NTIA role is reduced to the function to authorize the publication of top level domain name root zone files in the authoritative root, operated by Versign (on the basis of another contract between NTIA and VeriSign). My proposal was mainly aimed at this functrion. In a renewed system there would be no need anymore than a third party "rubberstamps" the publication of the TLD zonefiles in the root. It would go from IANA/ICANN directly to VeriSign. But there would be a need to oversee/review how this works, which includes also the role/right to step in if something goes wrong. 
 
Insofar, the AoC Review Team model is not just a blueprint, it is a source of inspiration which has to be further enhanced with regard to the specific needs of the function or - as an achitect would argue - form follows function. 
 
Wolfgang 

________________________________

From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org]
Sent: Fri 20/06/2014 04:05
To: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Cc: Bertrand de La Chapelle; Jordan Carter; discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] shifts in IANA/accountability discussion: your thoughts?



On Jun 19, 2014, at 11:13 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> Thanks Bertrand,
>
> this is very useful and helps indeed to frame the discussion.
>
> One of my ideas is to use the model of the AoC Review Teams (as ATRT2) for building of something which could be called a multistakeholder "oversight body" over the IANA functions.

Wolfgang -

  You have several different roles being served by ICANN:

  - ICANN "The Coordinator of the Internet identifiers system"

  - ICANN-DNS "The DNS system policy development body"

  - ICANN-IANA "The administrator/maintainer of the IANA registries"

  If one were to draw diagram of role served by ICANN in each of the various
  registries (DNS, IP addresses, other protocol parameters), it is quickly
  apparent that ICANN has a different span for each:

  - IETF protocol parameters: ICANN is simply the registry administrator
  - IP addresses: ICANN provides an overall global framework, and it is
    global IP address pool administrator
  - DNS: ICANN (in one way or another) handles nearly all of it; framework,
    policy development body, registry administrator

  The IANA is actually quite accountable today to both the IETF and
  the RIR address communities for its administration of the respective
  registries, so it is important to be clear about what oversight
  you are proposing and what problem you are trying to fix.  If it
  is to address potential failure of ICANN to serve the IETF or RIR
  communities, then it's worth considering the existing accountability
  mechanisms before proposing new ones.  If it is with respect to DNS,
  then that is a different matter, but it is still probably easier to
  make ICANN's DNS efforts demonstrably accountable to the DNS community
  than it is to introduce a new "oversight body" to the ecosystem...

FYI,
/John

Disclaimer: my thoughts alone - each reader's perception of ICANN likely
            to vary depending on the particular portion encountered.