[discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA

Tue Mar 4 18:35:55 UTC 2014

Hi,

Elsewhere I have been challenged to indicate my support for the IGP
proposal or say why I didn't.

This may be only a clerical function but it needs appropriate
multistakeholder oversight nonetheless, even if it is only periodic
review and exception oversight.  It cannot be left to a group who see
profits as the primary motivation since even a clerical organization can
be twisted when the a profit motive (or cost reduction) is the only
principle of control.  I also object to a process controlled by 
incumbents as those tend to make life miserable for new entrants.

The proposal says it should not do policy. Fine, but what stops that if
not Multistakeholder oversight. And yes, I know the proposal already
says I am wrong to believe that.  We have seen frequent examples of how 
implementation becomes policy at the drop of a coin or a lawyers phone call.

I also think that any proposal that splits the IANA functions into one
organizations and one part ignored, is not a proposal that is ready for
prime time.  There is no mention of what I have argued earlier is the
most important functions of IANA - the protocol and routing registries.

So, while I agree with the goal of IANA becoming a separate entity by 
September 2015, I cannot support this particular solution.

avri

On 04-Mar-14 17:57, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
> Adam:
>
> Don't worry, I haven't dismissed the proposal out of hand.  I'm still
> chewing on it.
>
> You mention the concern about "predictable and reliable service" --
> do you know of any instances where the current set-up has failed to
> provide that?
>
> I think the point about diversity of registries is an important one.
> In addition to those you mention, there are the ".brand" registries
> as well, who would provide yet another voice.  (I assume these would
> be included, even though they are not mentioned specifically in the
> proposal.  To the extent these are "single registrant" gTLDs, the
> "weighting" issue is interesting.  (Of course, there may be
> non-.brand single registrant TLDs as well (I think I saw a couple of
> applications where the users were not really "registrants" of SLDs
> ).)
>
> Greg
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake
> [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 12:32 PM To:
> Shatan, Gregory S. Cc: 'joseph alhadeff'; discuss at 1net.org Subject:
> Re: [discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>