[discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA (ignore prior reply - mea culpa)

Fri Mar 7 13:13:23 UTC 2014

Wow... my reply from a moment ago is _completely_ wrong (serves me right for
reading and replying to email before my morning coffee).   I'm sending this
email promptly to this list to hopefully cut off quite a few responses pointing
out the obvious - i.e. Vinay was not asking about replacement of the clerical
technical function, but the policy body (as this is what Milton's proposal
suggests might be contracted/recontracted periodically.)

Expect a more meaningful, caffeine-enabled reply shortly, and my apologies 
for the errant posting.

Mea culpa,
/John

Disclaimer:  My views alone (and particularly when so wrong... :-)

On Mar 7, 2014, at 7:52 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:

> On Mar 7, 2014, at 7:22 AM, Vinay Kesari <vinay.kesari at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Brenden and Milton,
>> 
>> I think Mawaki's point about the accuracy of stating that DNSA would have 'no policy role' (in the context of the contract between DNSA and the policy making body) requires further exploration. Brenden, while your response covers termination of the contract, it does not address what happens when it's time to renew the contract.
>> 
>> Assume this scenario (which might be a bit simplistic, but isn't implausible):
>> 
>> The DNSA is set up in 2015 along the lines proposed, and ICANN and DNSA negotiate a 5 year agreement containing fairly standard, commercially acceptable terms. There are no disputes between the contracting parties during the term of the contract. However, between 2015 and 2019 global geopolitics results in certain countries effectively walking away from ICANN (and all other I* organisations) and setting up a 'competing' policy making body organised along multilateral lines (let's call it 'NewCo', shall we? :)). It is now 2019, and DNSA issues an RFP - it receives responses from ICANN and NewCo. DNSA now needs to make a decision on who to award the contract to.
>> 
>> How would you see this scenario playing out, in process terms? What kind of selection procedure would DNSA use, considering that most objective criteria would automatically favour ICANN since it is the incumbent?
> 
> Vinay - 
> 
>   Thank you for describing this scenario for discussion.  
> 
>    The technical/clerical DNS registry function to be performed would be required by contract 
>    to follow policy guidance from DNSA, so any party performing that technical/clerical task 
>    would have no ability to utilize its own "policy making" apparatus or outputs from same...
>    (if I understand Milton and Brenden's proposal correctly...)
> 
> /John
> 
> Disclaimers:  My views alone.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss