[discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA

[Milton L Mueller]

Janis
We estimate that the combination of annual expenses from ICANN and Verisign for those functions is now about $8-10 million. However, DNSA does not take over all the IANA functions, so expenses may be less. We proposed an initial $12 million grant from ICANN to get things started and then continued funding of DNSA via self-imposed contributions by the DNSA members. In other words, the registries themselves pay for the DNS parts of the IANA functions. As the industry generates more than $7 billion in revenue annually, we are talking about 1% or less of their revenue to support the DNSA functions.
--MM

From: Janis Karklins [mailto:karklinsj at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:03 AM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: RE: [discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA

Milton,

How your proposed DNSA would be funded? Could you elaborate a bit on that?
Thank you

JK

________________________________
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org<mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 4:44 AM
To: Nii Narku Quaynor
Cc: discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
Subject: Re: [discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA

Nii, thanks for your questions. Most of them are actually answered in the paper itself, but I will answer your questions directly.

>Why is removing USG not mean just that? End of contract

First, it would be the end of 2 contracts, not one. ICANN and Verisign. You cannot just end the IANA functions contract.

Second, both contracts contain serious accountability measures. However wrongly conceived the idea of unilateral U.S. oversight is, how do we ensure that the root zone is managed properly and what is the recourse if the root zone managers are either negligent, incompetent or corrupt? What do you replace the IANA contract with?

The reason for a DNSA is that registries have the strongest incentive to get root zone management right. It is their data that the root zone contains. To ensure impartial administration we create a nondiscriminatory right to own DNSA to all registries?

> What problem is being solved by combining functions from other organizations to
> create another entity dnsa?

As noted above: 1) accountability problem; 2) incentives problem. To which we can add: not letting ICANN get too powerful.

>The proposed Dnsa is potentially a consortium of 1000+ registries and how would this work.

Not that many companies involved. More like a few hundred; lots of companies have multiple TLDs. Ownership shares might be based on some metric of size, such as names under registration, etc.

How does GNSO work? How does ccNSO work? How did Intelsat work? (consortium of ~200 national telecom operators). How did Nominet work? (shared ownership by many registrars) How does IEEE work? (hundreds of thousands of members).

>Is this different from creating another ICANN

Very different. ICANN is for making policy. It involves representation of diverse stakeholders and a complicated process for developing consensus on policy and approval by the board. DNSA is for operations. Most people I have talked to agree that we need to keep those things separate. So, we separate them

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140304/cff58a42/attachment-0001.html>