[discuss] my IANA submission to Brazil
ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Fri Mar 7 05:22:37 UTC 2014
I personally don't see any reason to change them at all. But what I am
proposing for agreement is a study with a timeframe, to document acceptable
recommendations for all the processes, which in many cases are likely to be
very similar to if not the same as current arrangements. I can't imagine
that was you suggest is contentious, but I want the proposal for NetMundial
to be simple so that people can agree to it as a first step, without needing
a detailed understanding of these issues. Otherwise we will never move on.
From: Chip Sharp (chsharp)
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 4:08 PM
To: Ian Peter
Cc: <discuss at 1net.org>
Subject: Re: [discuss] my IANA submission to Brazil
Dear Mr. Peter,
Without comment on the root zone proposals below, what is your proposal for
those aspects of the IANA functions that are subject to the MOU with the
IETF & IRTF (RFC2860 and supplements)?
I would propose that we first do no harm. Those aspects of the IANA
functions under the above mentioned MOU will remain subject to IETF/IRTF
On Mar 6, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> Below is the text I have forwarded as an individual to Brazil meeting
> after discussion here and on other lists.
> It may not create a perfect governance model. But if adopted, which is
> achievable in the current climate, it might help to create a slightly
> better one. Thank you to everyone who contributed.
> The link is at
> Ian Peter
> Roadmap (and principles) for internalisation of the former IANA functions
> under a multistakeholder governance model involving ICANN and associated
> technical organisations.
> 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 most current
> internet governance institutions (eg ICANN) were in existence. The
> emergence of a trusted global body to take over these functions was
> envisaged at the time and this submission suggests that we can now proceed
> to transfer remaining functions to a multistakeholder model of management.
> This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions (including their oversight),
> though necessary processes in the secure and authoritative functioning of
> the Internet, no longer need a separate identity and would more
> productively be merged with similar functions under the auspices of ICANN
> and associated technical bodies. Subject of course to many concerns about
> details, this direction appears to have widespread support from
> governments, civil society, technical community, and private sector.
> In order to achieve this desired change efficiently and productively, the
> following roadmap is proposed.
> 1. 1. ICANN should be requested to prepare a proposal for management
> of the previous IANA functions within the multistakeholder model of
> internet governance, including among other considerations the following
> (a) protection of the root zone from political or other improper
> (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
> (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
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss