[discuss] shifts in IANA/accountability discussion: your thoughts?
avri at acm.org
Fri Jun 20 11:15:56 UTC 2014
On 19-Jun-14 18:31, Seun Ojedeji wrote:>> For now, of course i agree it
needs to stay with ICANN,
> For all it's worth, I think it's good progress reading the section above
> from you.
this is consistent with what I have been saying, I want IANA to be a
separate entity that can be removed from ICANN. I.e. I think it should
remain a contracted function. I do not see any pressing reason to remove
it from ICANN at this point, and in fact I think doing so this year or
next would risk the ability to meet the NTIA SSR requirement by the end
of next year.
On 20-Jun-14 00:08, Barry Shein wrote:
> We agree. But...a contract with whom? Who is the counter-party?
another one for the community through the coordinating group to figure
out. I figure contract (or mou or set of mous - the form is not
important at this point) is with the community mediated through whatever
mechanism(s) replace(s), the coordinating group - i expect most of the
existing MOUs and agreements to remain as they are in the immediare
future - only the ones on names need a new form. The ones that seem
problematic are the gTLDs. But as I suggested in one of my drawings an
IAB-like independent structure under the organizational umbrella of
ICANN could be responsible for managing the agreements - something like
a coordinating group.
> And, more difficult, what are the default and breach terms and who, in
> case of default or breach, does the contract potentially go to for
More work for the community mediated by the Coordinating group. I do
not, however, see it as too mig a problem to define a set of criteria
that can be measured against a renewal. And I continue to argue for
binding appeals mechanisms for the breakage when it occurs.
As for what occurs, remediation of putting the contract out to bid for
someone who can meet the requirements.
More information about the discuss