[discuss] [governance] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web Policymaking Body
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Sat Mar 15 16:25:19 UTC 2014
Well, the NTIA announcement certainly paves the way for more focused and productive discussions in Brazil. It eliminates "the status quo" as an option.
I agree with John Curran here:
> Let all of us hope it is _not_ up to ICANN to make such a decision; it should be a
> matter for the global Internet community to consider and then make the final
> recommendations. As I understand it, ICANN's role is in convening stakeholders
> across the global Internet community to develop a plan, not to decide the matter itself.
Since the Brazil meeting is convened by ICANN and Brazil, I think this is a mandate for us to take up IANA reform seriously in Sao Paulo in April.
Furthermore, I would refer people back to the IGP plan, and the call to separate the globalization/reform of the IANA functions from the broader and more difficult reforms that must be made in ICANN's policy making process, domicile, etc. Parminder's comments confuse these two things.
Let's do one thing at a time, so that each can be done right. The distinction between ICANN's policy process, its corporate domicile, its contracts with registries, etc., with the globalization of the IANA functions has been reiterated many times on this list. We don't have to change everything about ICANN in one stage. Once the IANA functions are dealt with, a lot of options open up regarding the policy process.
> NTIA issued an IANA Transition Q & A document that includes one
> requirement that may have relevance - "NTIA will not accept a proposal that
> replaces the NTIA role with a government or an inter-
> governmental organization solution."
This is good, too. Basically it takes Principle #2 of the IGP paper (don't internationalize the NTIA's role, end it) and makes it a _requirement_ of the transition.
More information about the discuss