[discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Tue Mar 11 13:32:40 UTC 2014
This brings us back to the early list days when we were discussing what
multistakeholder in the context of internet governance means. While the
concept of "roles" has accumulated some significant and unwelcome
baggage as a means of exclusion, there is a reality that some technical
and operational functions need to in the hands of those with the proper
expertise and we could suffer equally from over inclusion... We need to
consider mechanisms of oversight, separation of duties and checks and
balances as appropriate, but we should not undermine needed efficiency
in, and efficacy of, operational processes and technical decision-making
or implementation with overly bureaucratic processes or consultations
that don't bear relevance to the issue. This is certainly by no means
an answer to any specific question, but rather a cation to
considerations of developing process solutions...
On 3/11/2014 9:10 AM, Marilyn Cade wrote:
> When the discussions about newco were underway, respect for the RIRS, cctld managers , etc. was a key issue. Brought home to me by members of the technical community, and others .
> I appreciate Suzanne's post.
> What I see in the Syracuse university approach is mostly an idea for a trade association model.
> Not to say any solution/ proposal sld be discounted .
> But wld be time effective to establish some core principles. Integrity of the root zone is right up there for business, large and small, and from all regions.
> Marilyn Cade
> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Mar 11, 2014, at 8:46, "Suzanne Woolf" <suzworldwide at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not to speak for Andrew or anyone else, particularly as I have no formal role in the IETF that touches on governance, but:
>> The IGOVUPDATE session was intended to review and assess the protocol parameters function as part of the future of IANA, so started with a presentation of some of the history and of the principles attached. There was a lengthy and vigorous discussion; it's probably more interesting to listen to the archive or read the transcript than to have me try to paraphrase.
>> One prominent thread was that authority over the protocol parameters registries lies entirely with the IETF. There is no public policy component in the IANA protocol parameters function; there may be in the work of the IETF (separate thread someone is trying to start elsewhere), but if so, the place for it is not in the IANA, or in ICANN. Like root server operators, or the RIRs when they get new allocations from IANA, IANA performs these processes in a strictly mechanical way. IANA publishes the data it's given as the output of those other processes.
>> To me at least, the larger concern is the bias towards the DNS root policy function of ICANN in discussions of future governance of IANA. It's been true since before ICANN was founded that the RIRs and IETF are happy with looking after their own policy functions, and letting ICANN do DNS root policy. The danger in institutionalizing this as we're currently discussing, however, is that their concerns will be glossed over and we'll end up in a situation that can be inappropriately influenced through governance of IANA in the event that someone doesn't like those others bodies' governance processes or outcomes.
>> All of the proposals I've seen seem to assume that oversight of IANA requires wider (and, usually, more complex) multistakeholder representation from the DNS root policy function than from the RIRs and the IETF. This is probably true, but we need to make sure that we don't inadvertently create some new policy dependency we didn't have before.
>> I'd like to add that I can't really imagine a situation in which it would be in the interests of anyone in the proposed oversight bodies I've seen to challenge the outcome of IETF processes in maintenance of protocol parameters registries, although I haven't tried very hard yet. However, since almost all of the proposals I've seen speak interchangeably of "the IANA functions" and "the IANA DNS root functions," without appearing to notice or account for this particular asymmetry, I can support my colleagues in being a little nervous about what mechanisms will be put in place to support *their* authority over their relationship with IANA.
>> And yes, I'm familiar with RFC 2860, and with the ways it's been implemented over the years; but with the oversight body for the proposed contract being composed almost entirely of those with no conceivable relationship to the protocol parameters work, I am, at least, interested in hearing more.
>>> On Mar 10, 2014, at 11:37 AM, Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal at pir.org> wrote:
>>> My guess is that relatively few people on the list were at IETF. I attend
>>> sometimes but couldn¹t do this one, but the minutes of the IGOVUPDATE
>>> session are at
>>> See also
>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/slides/slides-89-igovupdate-0.pdf and
>>> Can you post information that you are referring to from the IGOVUPDATE
>>>> On 3/10/14, 11:14 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 09:45:10AM -0400, Marilyn Cade wrote:
>>>>> ICANN stakeholders
>>>>> Own this evolutionary discussion.
>>>> To be clear, ICANN owns it to the extent you conflate "IANA" and "root
>>>> DNS co-ordination". If you're talking about all the IANA functions,
>>>> then some other organizations have something to say, as I think was
>>>> made clear in the IGOVUPDATE session at IETF89 last week.
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Andrew Sullivan
>>>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss