[discuss] Host country

John Curran jcurran at istaff.org
Mon Mar 17 21:35:54 UTC 2014

On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:24 PM, "Jay Daley" <jay at nzrs.net.nz> wrote:
>> On 18/03/2014, at 10:00 am, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Jay Daley <jay at nzrs.net.nz> wrote:
>>>> Agreed, but presumes that the requests actually go to the IANA.  For example, I do 
>>>> not know if discussions regarding country code redelegations go to IANA or ICANN,
>>> What do you mean by that distinction?
>> Complete 100% transparency in IANA actions does not let one know whether there 
>> are government affects on root zone updates, if in fact all of the requests first
>> go to ICANN to be processed and there are not similar transparency practices.
> Sorry I don't understand how in the current context, where IANA is an operating division of ICANN, you distinguish between sending changes to IANA and sending changes to ICANN.  Currently the two are one and the same thing because it is not possible to send something to IANA that is somehow ring-fenced from the rest of ICANN.
> Are you actually supporting the views of IGP and .nz that IANA should be structurally separate from ICANN to ensure the transparency of process?

Jay -

To be clear, I am pointing out that we must be clear about our 
oversight goals regarding IANA, and if these are driven by a need
for transparency in administration of DNS policy by IANA and 
freedom from ad-hoc governmental influence, then it is very
important to understand what exactly is an ICANN request vs 
an IANA request. 

If is definitely going to be challenging to come up with a model 
for oversight of IANA tasks if we can't readily distinguish its tasks 
from ICANN's...


Disclaimer: My views alone.

More information about the discuss mailing list