[discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA

Shatan, Gregory S. GShatan at ReedSmith.com
Tue Mar 4 16:57:39 UTC 2014

What makes you think this is a technical function that can be performed by 1 man?

My understanding is that it is currently far from a “one-man operation.”  Have you analyzed how this function is currently handled, and have you determined what is unnecessary?  I suspect you would be the world’s foremost “time and motion” expert if you could really demonstrate how the current tasks could all be done by 1 man (or woman).  More likely, there is a failure to take into account everything that goes into performing this function.  Even the Vignics thought it would take 3 people (one to go to the bathroom and one to work weekends, apparently)….

I’m still considering Milton’s proposal and my position on it, but regardless of one’s position, it doesn’t help to mis-define and trivialize what takes place to carry out the IANA function(s).

Greg Shatan

From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of James Seng
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 10:06 AM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA

Hi Milton,

A technical function that can be perform by 1-man would become political if you attached a 12m tag to it.

So I would hestitate to talk about cost at this moment.

-James Seng

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
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.

From: Janis Karklins [mailto:karklinsj at gmail.com<mailto:karklinsj at gmail.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:03 AM

To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
Subject: RE: [discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA


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


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

discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>

-James Seng

* * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation.

* * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.

Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140304/fdccaa4c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list