[discuss] Thoughts welcome on proposed Netmundial submission

David Conrad drc at virtualized.org
Sun Mar 2 11:06:09 UTC 2014


A few observations:

On Feb 28, 2014, at 12:32 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>  Roadmap (and principles) for internalisation of the former  IANA functions within the multistakeholder ICANN model.

You aren't actually talking about the IANA functions, you are talking about one specific IANA function, namely the root management function. The IANA functions consists of (my categorization) three major functions (root management, internet numbers allocation, and protocol parameter registry maintenance) and two minor functions (operation of .ARPA and some of its sub-zones and operation of .INT) however it is quite common for folks to focus exclusively on root management. I might suggest either expanding your draft to deal with the other functions or retitling your draft to express the solitary focus on root management.

>  This roadmap concentrates on one internet governance issue only – the future of the IANA functions which have been the subject of much past discussion because current arrangements are seen by many to be outside of the preferred multistakeholder model.
>  Indeed, IANA itself was established  in an era before current internet governance models (multistakeholder) and governance institutions (eg ICANN) were in existence.
>  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.

As has been mentioned by many people in various places, "IANA" isn't an entity, it's a set of functions, currently performed by ICANN. The authority by which ICANN performs those functions can be argued, either under (a) a contract with the US Dept. of Commerce NTIA (which presumably doesn't need further explanation here); and/or (b) an MoU memorialized in RFC 2860 which states:

"  IANA - Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (a traditional name, used
   here to refer to the technical team making and publishing the
   assignments of Internet protocol technical parameters). The IANA
   technical team is now part of ICANN."

> Subject of course to many concerns about details, this direction appears to have widespread support from governments, civil society, technical community, and private sector.

I'm a bit confused with this assertion since it seems to start from a false basis. Today, "IANA" isn't a separate entity and, regardless of whether you agree with the NTIA contract view or the IETF view, the IANA functions are already performed 'under the auspices of ICANN'.

> 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;
> (b) integrity, stability, continuity, security and robustness of the administration of the root zone;
> (c) widespread [international] trust by Internet users in the administration of this function; (d) support of a single unified root zone; and
> (e) agreement regarding an accountability mechanism for this function that is broadly accepted as being in the global public interest."
> 2. Preparation of the proposal should involve discussion with all major stakeholder groups, with a completion timetable for a first draft for discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Turkey in September 2014.
> 3. To expedite completion in a timely manner, it is suggested that outside consultants be engaged to prepare the discussion paper (proposal) in consultation with major stakeholders.
> 4. The solution must have the following characteristics
> (a) offers a legal structure that is robust against rogue litigation attacks

> (b) is aligned with the Internet technical infrastructure in a way that supports innovative, technology based evolution of the DNS.
> (c) is an inclusive model
> (d) is a demonstrable improvement on current processes in this area

You might want to include a solution to issues related to providing services to countries or other entities under UN (or other) sanction, which in at least some (most? all?) venues is illegal and puts the folks providing that service (i.e., IANA staff) at risk for being arrested.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140302/eaddd454/signature.asc>

More information about the discuss mailing list