[discuss] Thoughts welcome on proposed Netmundial submission
Peter Dengate Thrush
barrister at chambers.gen.nz
Sun Mar 2 10:51:25 UTC 2014
On 2/03/2014, at 10:52 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2014, at 12:00 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 2014, at 7:32 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>> Ian -
>> Very nice writeup... I have just a couple of comments, which you may use or
>> discard as desired.
>>> This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions, though necessary processes in the secure and authoritative functioning of the Internet, no longer need a separate entity and would more productively merged with similar functions under the auspices of ICANN.
>> It is an interesting formulation of the problem statement... At present, I would describe
>> the IANA functions as "a set of tasks" rather than an "entity", and hence would instead
>> phrase the purpose of a roadmap as:
>> "This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions (which are necessary for the secure
>> and proper functioning of the Internet) that are currently administered by ICANN per
>> USG contract should remain at ICANN and be performed instead under its auspices
>> via the strengthening of accountability mechanisms to meet the global public interest."
> I like Ian's initial note and this suggested refinement, but would also like to see some clarification regarding those IANA functions which do not relate to the DNS root.
This should be the subject of a deep and wide debate.
At present, the USG Statement of Work specifies a host of relationships with other entities that need to be maintained by ICANN, and approaches to them.
If the IANA contract were to go, (and the SOW with it) what should be the guidelines for ICANN's managing of the whole of the IANA functions?
Once settled, where should they be recorded ( ICANN Bylaws, a unilateral Affirmation of Commitments, a series of bi-lats with all other actors...???) How would that be debated - who could attend, and in which fora?
This debate should be moving confidently forward to a post-IANA contract world, exploring how it will be run, what it will look like, and how accountability to the affected I* community can be ensured and enhanced.
>>> Subject of course to many concerns about details, this direction appears to have widespread support from governments, civil society, technical community, and private sector.
>>> In order to achieve this desired change efficiently and productively, the following roadmap is proposed.
>>> 1. ICANN should be requested to prepare a proposal for management of the previous IANA functions within the ICANN multistakeholder model, bearing in mind the following criteria:
>>> (a) protection of the root zone from political or other improper interference;
>> The above criteria confuses me - are we referring to ICANN's DNS policy development role,
>> or performance of the IANA functions? The latter are technical tasks in registry administration
>> and the most important criteria would be that ICANN continue to implement all IANA registry
>> functions in accordance with the respective policies (I guess one could further elaborate to
>> point out that operating per respective policies means free from political or other interference,
>> but that really is secondary to making sure that the IANA follows IETF protocol, RIR IP, and
>> ICANN DNS policies, both presently adopted and as revised in the future.)
> Right. In particular, one would hope that proper administration of the IANA functions includes protection from "improper interference" in any of them as an initial requirement.
> The IANA functions do not consist only of those related to the DNS, yet many of the suggestions and assumptions we see tend to be limited to issues and mechanisms that may apply more closely to DNS-related IANA functions than to others. It would be helpful to be clear whether we're talking about the DNS-related functions only, or the full scope of IANA's responsibilities to the internet community.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss