[discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA

Sun Mar 9 14:02:59 UTC 2014

It would be helpful for the proponents of the proposal then not dismiss out our hand any criticisms as uninformed or a root cause of not having read the proposal... A large number of people of have raised oversight and separation of duties as questions not sufficiently answered.   Repeating the same dismissal of those concerns as uninformed because there is a contract and it is inconceivable that 100 separate entities could ever be aligned in their own self interest is not helpful.  If you want a fair hearing you have to give one too.  This list was meant to facilitate an exchange of ideas not their imposition by a war of attrition of who can post more messages.  We would substantially increase list participation if we would all recall that.

Joe 

Sent from my iPad

> On Mar 3, 2014, at 11:03 AM, James Seng <james.seng at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I don't think Milton mean the way as you suggested. 
> 
> The USG oversight of root zone has been a long standing "problem" (politically) and that release of control is long overdue, been extended again and again, as it has been suggested that there is no mechanism for USG.
> 
> So Milton proposal is the one of the more reasonable ones I seen that explain the problem clearly with a guidance of the principles of how such control can be safely transferred to another organisation that continues with the stability and continuity of the Internet. 
> 
> Hence, I agree and support the structure and the principles as described by Milton's paper. 
> 
> If this proposal is adopted, I don't think anyone here including Milton is naive to think it will be adopted wholesale. I believe politically for USG to relinquish its control is that it is somehow still involved in the oversight. But if USG is involved, then we get another big elephant in the room "Which other government should be involved?"
> 
> In anycase, it is a start, however slim chance I think it would be adopted in its existing form. 
> 
> -James Seng
> 
> 
>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at ccianet.org> wrote:
>> Dear Milton, while is is useful of course to contribute proposals, suggesting that other parties must accept them wholesale and only propose 'quibbles' of change doesn't seem to me an approach that inspires confidence.
>> 
>>> On 3 March 2014 14:52, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>> Even if there are quibbles about the details of the proposal, we look forward to gaining agreement on those principles, and are willing to entertain any proposals that embody them.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>>  
>> Nick Ashton-Hart
>> 
>> Geneva Representative
>> Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA)
>> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45
>> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
>> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
>> USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430
>> email: nashton at ccianet.org
>> Skype: nashtonhart
>> http://www.ccianet.org
>> 
>> Need to schedule a meeting or call with me? Feel free to pick a time and 
>> date convenient for you at http://meetme.so/nashton
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -James Seng
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140309/eb209655/attachment.html>