[discuss] the three orthogonal questions [was Thoughts welcome on proposed Netmundial submission]
roland at internetpolicyagency.com
Fri Mar 7 16:40:25 UTC 2014
In message <91eff933515e47b98f129db32f4fdf9c at EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>, at
15:45:51 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> writes
>>I don't understand why an alternative organisation performing the IANA
>>function would cause your option (1) to be triggered, nor why the successful
>>bidder has to have a direct contract with the policymaking stakeholders.
>>The nature of the required relationship is summed up in the NTIA RFP:
>OK, let me explain.
>Assume we are yanking the IANA contract from ICANN and giving it to the
>new entity. The new entity must:
>>...develop a close constructive working relationship with all interested and
>>affected parties to ensure quality and satisfactory performance of the IANA
>>functions. The interested and affected parties include, but are not
>>limited to..." yada, yada yada
>So in effect, the new IANA must duplicate the constulative structure
>that ICANN already has.
Not at all. It must simply clone the existing relationship of
todays-IANA with the consultative structures that exist (and would
continue to exist) within ICANN and other stakeholders.
There is no new consultative structure required, merely engagement with
the already existing ones.
>>The Contractor is required to perform the IANA functions, which are
>>critical for the operation of the Internet’s core infrastructure, in
>>a stable and
>>secure manner. The IANA functions are administrative and technical in nature
>>based on established policies developed by interested and
>>affected parties as enumerated in Section C.1.3.
>You have here proven my point. Note that the IANA contract does NOT say
>that the IANA functions are "based on established policies developed by
>ICANN." It says they are >based on established policies developed by
>interested and affected parties as enumerated in Section C.1.3."
If we made a list of the policies which IANA currently follows, how many
are from ICANN, and how many from others? It's a pretty short list,
anyway. Not that difficult to continue to follow.
>If the new contractor was to follow ICANN policies, it would have to
>have a completely new contract binding it to the results of ICANN
You need to realise that contractual binding is a very USA-ian
preoccupation. There's plenty of stuff like this done all over the world
(including in the USA) "because it's the right thing to do, and what we
promised we'd do", rather than because there's a lawyer with a big
stick, waiting to sue, stood behind you.
> just as the DNSA would. Otherwise, the new IANA contractor would
>obliterate ICANN and have to build a new one.
It simply has to recognise the output of the existing ICANN.
More information about the discuss