[discuss] What are the actual goal(s) of the proposal?(was Re: Roadmap for globalizing IANA)

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello Milton,

Based on recent insight (from Vinay/John), I went through the proposal
again. I will like to summarise the goals of your proposal in 3 lines and
like to hopefully get an ack from you(or further help clarify possible area
where i may have missed)

- End the IANA contract with USG/ its DNS function (what i call the ICANN
globalization/freedom) [1]
- Assign the function and contract to DNSA [2]
- Grant DNSA the right to refuse ICANN contract in future (what i call the
ICANN de-globalization strategy) [3]

If those 3 lines of mine happens to be valid wouldn't it then mean that the
supposed ICANN rescue mission could indeed turn to a take-over mission in
near future?

Thanks again for this proposal as its really a good piece and has helped
get understanding of a lot of things.

Kind Regards
ref from proposal:

1. If ending US oversight is contingent upon ICANN reforms, then by
definition the USG will be able to decide unilaterally whether the reforms
provide an acceptable basis for letting go. That would give the US
government privileged influence over the nature of ICANN well into the
future

2. The DNSA would require a binding contract with ICANN regarding the
conditions under which it would agree to implement changes in the root zone
or other associated databases to reflect policies emerging from ICANN's
policy development processes

3. For example, if the contract was not in perpetuity but was renewable
every five
years, diverse entities might compete to replace the existing ICANN as the
policy development authority

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Vinay Kesari <vinay.kesari at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
>
> Regards,
> Vinay
>  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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140307/4853fd19/attachment.html>