[discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA

Vinay Kesari vinay.kesari at gmail.com
Fri Mar 7 13:25:43 UTC 2014

Hi John,

My understanding is a bit different - under the proposal, isn't DNSA
supposed to carry out the 'technical/ clerical DNS registry function' and
'required by contract to follow policy guidance' from ICANN/some other
policy making body?

 On 07-Mar-2014 6:22 pm, "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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140307/40c807dd/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list