[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 4, Issue 145

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Sun Mar 16 21:32:15 UTC 2014


On 16-Mar-14 16:56, Steve Crocker wrote:
> On Mar 16, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> As for IANA, I favor a mesh of MOUs with the clients (ICANN, IETF,
>>  Root Server Operators, RIRs, ...) and Host country agreements with
>>  several nations known for protecting data rights, with oversight
>> by a Multistakeholder panel of IANA Stewards.
> Avri,
> You’re specifying a solution.

Yes, i was asked for a possible solution so I gave one.  The answer was
given more to show that a solution was possible, than to start working
on solutions prematurely.

I had previously, as you requested, stated a principle.  As far as I
could tell, the question stemmed from thinking about the principle I
offered and what it might mean in real life.

I understand you do not agree with this principle. Nonetheless I persist 
in believing it is a principle worthy of extended discussion but the 
wider community.

> What’s the problem?

The problem is that strict functional separation cannot be done in ICANN
as currently constituted.  It is contrary to its organizational
structure and to the philosophy of integrating policy with
implementation, which I also support.

So if you accept the principle of strict functional separation, between
policy and administration of the critical IANA resource, we have an
implementation problem.

For you list of issues, it looks like we have some work to do on 
defining processes for dealing with such issues while maintining a 
strict wall between ICANN's policy machinations and the operation of IANA.

>> There is also the issue of ICANN being subject to US law.  This
>> remains a problem if ICANN plans to keep the administrative
>> function after transition.
> The question has already been asked and I’ll ask again.  What is the
> specific problem about being subject to US law?  As a general matter,
> rule of law is usually considered one of the U.S.’s very strongest
> qualities.

This has been answered many times by many people, but I will answer yet 
again.  US law on occasion restricts who a company does business with. 
Losing NTIA oversight does not change that.  IANA should not be subject 
to such vagaries of national law.

Beyond that, US law allows infractions of rights against the privacy etc 
of data and pervasive monitoring that may not be appropriate for the 
future of IANA and which are not consistent with other rule of law 


More information about the discuss mailing list