[discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA

Milton L Mueller mueller at syr.edu
Tue Mar 11 16:47:53 UTC 2014


-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade

>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 .

Marilyn
I am amused to see that you and Parminder are unified in your (mis)characterization of the IGP proposal. This is what they call "spin" in Washington. 

A trade association is a group of firms in the same industry who collaborate to advance their collective economic and political interests. As a business lobbyist, you ought to know all about that. The DNSA is not that, and has no capability to be that. TLD registries do have common operational interests, but are also competitors in many ways, and when ccTLDs are included, a highly diverse bunch. 

Since I know you have a background in telecoms and AT&T specifically, I would ask you: do you consider the North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) to be a "trade association model?" While there are differences, our plan is closer to NANPA and I would appreciate dropping the false labeling.

The DNSA is only one half of the proposal and is only the operational half. ICANN continues to make policy and the DNSA is contractually bound to implement the changes required by policy, such as the addition or deletion of TLDs. Who better to implement root zone file changes than the actual registries whose data it is and whose service is affected? In our long history in ICANN, I know that you have emphasized the security and stability of DNS repeatedly. Our proposal would be a huge advance for the security and stability of the process; I don’t understand why you don't support it. 

I really like what Mr. Alhadeff said in this regard: 

"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."

In other words, when we talk about "oversight" we do not need a committee - whether governmental or multistakeholder - poking their noses into the arcana of zone file modifications, as if they are going to catch technical errors that the registries didn’t. What we need, first of all, is to make the people who are directly in charge of and affected by zone file data (the TLDs) responsible for the changes. And to keep that on track, we also need some clear safeguards against any abuses, such as contractual obligations (the ICANN-DNSA agreement) and antitrust checks. 

--MM


More information about the discuss mailing list