[discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA

[Adam Peake]

Hi Greg,

On Mar 5, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:

> 
> The popular term for this might be “the fox guarding the henhouse.”  Of course, if it is merely “operational,” then perhaps the concern is overblown.  But if these functions are merely operational, why not just leave them at ICANN?
>  


Not sure about "fox guarding the henhouse"...  These functions are essential to the registries' business.  As Milton keeps reminding us, it's operational, they need predictable and reliable service.  

The diversity of registries is quite positive, very different business models (from com to new community tlds), different stakeholders and particularly sponsoring entities (for profit, ccTLD, government, IGO, NGO), geographic diversity (though even with around 25% ccTLD not as balanced as we'd hope), even language.

I think it's worth looking at the merits of the proposal. 

Best,

Adam


> Greg Shatan
>  
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 9:55 AM
> To: discuss at 1net.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
>  
> While I am not as well versed in these issues and their history of some of the more frequent commentators, it would seem that accountability is often benefited by and predicated on a separation of duties in oversight.  The new organization seems to rely on self-interested parties having an alignment of interest with the public good as opposed to the more traditional concept of separation of duties/interest in oversight.  Am I missing the checks and balances?
> 
> Best-
> 
> Joe
> WOn 3/3/2014 9:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 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
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>  
> 
>  
> * * *
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss